[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <4B4AD2CE.8040207@zytor.com>
Date: Sun, 10 Jan 2010 23:27:10 -0800
From: "H. Peter Anvin" <hpa@...or.com>
To: "Martin K. Petersen" <martin.petersen@...cle.com>
CC: Andreas Dilger <adilger@....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 01/10/2010 10:36 PM, Martin K. Petersen wrote:
>>>>>> "Andreas" == Andreas Dilger <adilger@....com> writes:
>
> Andreas> I agree whole heartedly. We steer users very sharply away from
> Andreas> using partitions at all, because on h/w RAID devices the
> Andreas> 512-byte offset from fdisk completely kills RAID-5/6
> Andreas> performance.
>
> I don't have a problem aligning to 1MB (taking alignment_offset into
> account) by default but there needs to be an easy override. There are
> RAID arrays that internally compensate for the legacy 63 sector offset
> and we'll cause misalignment if we start at 1MB on those.
>
> I'm heavily lobbying our storage partners to make sure they fill out the
> right SCSI bits if their LUNs are not naturally aligned. But there are
> obviously going to be legacy devices out there that will need manual
> alignment compensation.
>
Yes, but we shouldn't default to braindead mode.
-hpa
--
H. Peter Anvin, Intel Open Source Technology Center
I work for Intel. I don't speak on their behalf.
--
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