lists  /  announce  owl-users  owl-dev  john-users  john-dev  passwdqc-users  yescrypt  popa3d-users  /  oss-security  kernel-hardening  musl  sabotage  tlsify  passwords  /  crypt-dev  xvendor  /  Bugtraq  Full-Disclosure  linux-kernel  linux-netdev  linux-ext4  linux-hardening  PHC 
Open Source and information security mailing list archives
Hash Suite: Windows password security audit tool. GUI, reports in PDF.
[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Date:	Thu, 30 Sep 2010 12:07:02 -0500
From:	Eric Sandeen <>
To:	"Ted Ts'o" <>,
	"Martin K. Petersen" <>,
	Mike Snitzer <>,
	Jens Axboe <>,
	"" <>,
	"" <>
Subject: Re: I/O topology fixes for big physical block size

On 09/30/2010 11:30 AM, Ted Ts'o wrote:
> On Tue, Sep 28, 2010 at 04:36:42PM -0500, Eric Sandeen wrote:
>> Ok, then it sounds like mkfs.ext4's refusal to make fs blocksize less
>> than device physical sectorsize without -F is broken, and that should
>> be removed.  I'd say issue a warning in the case but if there's a 16k
>> physical device maybe there's no point in warning either?
> If the device physical sectorsize is that big, should we perhaps use
> that as a hint to align writes to that blocks aligned with that
> physical sectorsize?  Right now we use the optimal I/O size, but if
> the optimal I/O size is not specified and the physical sectorsize is,

I can't keep track of all the parameters, is it ever true that optimal
I/O size isn't specified?

> say, 16k or 32k, maybe we should use to calculate for
> s_raid_stripe_width?

Perhaps, though really ext4 still doesn't do -that- much with the value,

To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-ext4" in
the body of a message to
More majordomo info at

Powered by blists - more mailing lists