[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <20100930173342.GB31945@redhat.com>
Date: Thu, 30 Sep 2010 13:33:43 -0400
From: Mike Snitzer <snitzer@...hat.com>
To: Eric Sandeen <sandeen@...hat.com>
Cc: "Ted Ts'o" <tytso@....edu>,
"Martin K. Petersen" <martin.petersen@...cle.com>,
Jens Axboe <jaxboe@...ionio.com>,
"James.Bottomley@...senpartnership.com"
<James.Bottomley@...senpartnership.com>,
"linux-scsi@...r.kernel.org" <linux-scsi@...r.kernel.org>,
"linux-ext4@...r.kernel.org" <linux-ext4@...r.kernel.org>
Subject: Re: I/O topology fixes for big physical block size
On Thu, Sep 30 2010 at 1:07pm -0400,
Eric Sandeen <sandeen@...hat.com> wrote:
> 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?
Yes optimal_io_size may be 0. But minimum_io_size will always be scaled
up to at least match physical_block_size.
In any case: this 1MB physical_block_size device, which started this
thread, also has 1MB for both minimum_io_size and optimal_io_size.
Mike
--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-ext4" in
the body of a message to majordomo@...r.kernel.org
More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Powered by blists - more mailing lists