On Tuesday 01 of May 2012 18:04:25 Martin wrote:
> Are 16kByte blocks/sectors useful to btrfs?
>
> Or rather, can btrfs usefully use 16kByte blocks?
Yes, and they are already supported using -l and -n flags:
mkfs.btrfs -l $((4*4096)) -n $((4*4096)) /dev/sda1
You can set sector size to 16kb but
Looking at this again from some time ago...
Brief summary:
There is a LOT of nefarious cleverness being attempted by SSD
manufacturers to accommodate a 4kByte block size. Get that wrong, or
just be unsympathetic to that 'cleverness', and you suffer performance
degradation and/or premature device
Hi Martin,
Am Mittwoch, 8. Februar 2012 schrieb Martin:
> My understanding is that for x86 architecture systems, btrfs only
> allows a sector size of 4kB for a HDD/SSD. That is fine for the
> present HDDs assuming the partitions are aligned to a 4kB boundary for
> that device.
>
> However for SSD
On 09/02/12 01:42, Liu Bo wrote:
> On 02/09/2012 03:24 AM, Martin wrote:
[ No problem for 4kByte sector HDDs. However, for SSDs... ]
>> However for SSDs...
>>
>> I'm using for example a 60GByte SSD that has:
>>
>> 8kB page size;
>> 16kB logical to physical mapping chunk size;
>> 2MB e
On 02/09/2012 03:24 AM, Martin wrote:
> My understanding is that for x86 architecture systems, btrfs only allows
> a sector size of 4kB for a HDD/SSD. That is fine for the present HDDs
> assuming the partitions are aligned to a 4kB boundary for that device.
>
> However for SSDs...
>
> I'm using f
My understanding is that for x86 architecture systems, btrfs only allows
a sector size of 4kB for a HDD/SSD. That is fine for the present HDDs
assuming the partitions are aligned to a 4kB boundary for that device.
However for SSDs...
I'm using for example a 60GByte SSD that has:
8kB page siz
