[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-Id: <1263237448.30988.31.camel@localhost.localdomain>
Date: Mon, 11 Jan 2010 21:17:28 +0200
From: Artem Bityutskiy <dedekind1@...il.com>
To: Pavel Machek <pavel@....cz>
Cc: "H. Peter Anvin" <hpa@...or.com>, Karel Zak <kzak@...hat.com>,
linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, linux-fsdevel@...r.kernel.org,
util-linux-ng@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [ANNOUNCE] util-linux-ng v2.17 (stable)
On Mon, 2010-01-11 at 15:05 +0100, Pavel Machek wrote:
> On Fri 2010-01-08 13:43:47, H. Peter Anvin wrote:
> > On 01/08/2010 01:33 AM, Karel Zak wrote:
> > >
> > > fdisk:
> > > - the fdisk command aligns newly created partitions to minimum_io_size
> > > boundary ("minimum_io_size" is physical sector size or stripe chunk
> > > size on RAIDs).
> > >
> > > - the fdisk command supports disks with alignment_offset now.
> > >
> >
> > I think we should align, by default, much more aggressively than that --
> > because frequently we just don't know what the real physical alignment
> > is (think of flash media, which uses large erase blocks underneath.)
>
> Flash has special mapping layer, and does not care (SD/MMC), or is a
> raw nand and can't be used as block device (smartmedia).
MMC does care, and we measured it, non-4KiB aligned writes were
noticeably slower on real eMMC and some MMC cards. I cannot remember the
numbers, but I vaguely recall something like 11%.
So the first statement is incorrect. It really does matter. E.g., we
observed that FAT FS was slower if the partition did not start from 4KiB
boundary.
--
Best Regards,
Artem Bityutskiy (Артём Битюцкий)
--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majordomo@...r.kernel.org
More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
Powered by blists - more mailing lists