On Mon, Dec 06, 2010 at 03:18:49PM -0500, John Baldwin wrote:
On Monday, December 06, 2010 2:53:27 pm Pawel Jakub Dawidek wrote:
On Mon, Dec 06, 2010 at 08:35:36PM +0100, Ivan Voras wrote:
Please persuade me on technical grounds why ashift, a property
intended for address alignment,
On Mon, Dec 06, 2010 at 11:10:38PM +0200, Alexander Motin wrote:
On 06.12.2010 22:18, John Baldwin wrote:
On Monday, December 06, 2010 2:53:27 pm Pawel Jakub Dawidek wrote:
On Mon, Dec 06, 2010 at 08:35:36PM +0100, Ivan Voras wrote:
Please persuade me on technical grounds why ashift, a
On Mon, Dec 06, 2010 at 09:28:42PM +0100, Ivan Voras wrote:
But there are two reasons that I think are important, which resulted
in changing this:
1) It is being used out of the original context in the mailing list
posts I've referenced - it was being used (and in a worse way, by
having a
Pawel Jakub Dawidek wrote:
On Mon, Dec 06, 2010 at 11:10:38PM +0200, Alexander Motin wrote:
On 06.12.2010 22:18, John Baldwin wrote:
On Monday, December 06, 2010 2:53:27 pm Pawel Jakub Dawidek wrote:
On Mon, Dec 06, 2010 at 08:35:36PM +0100, Ivan Voras wrote:
Please persuade me on technical
On Tue, 7 Dec 2010 10:51:37 +0100
Pawel Jakub Dawidek p...@freebsd.org wrote:
We can be smarter than that, really. We all know the disk presents 512
bytes sectors only(?) because most of the software out there
(including Windows, I guess) will simply break when they see disk
with 4kB sector.
On 7 December 2010 11:21, Pawel Jakub Dawidek p...@freebsd.org wrote:
PS. Do you know your change breaks all current ZFS installation if
stripesize is defined for a provider?
# zpool create tank ada0
(upgrade FreeBSD so that ada0 now reports 4kB stripesize)
# zpool
On 07.12.2010 13:04, Pawel Jakub Dawidek wrote:
On Tue, Dec 07, 2010 at 12:25:34PM +0200, Alexander Motin wrote:
It is really nice that we support bigger sector sizes. But unluckily we
are not the only OS in universe. Disks with data may move between
systems, partition could be shared, etc. We
On Tue, Dec 07, 2010 at 12:25:28PM +0100, Ivan Voras wrote:
On 7 December 2010 11:21, Pawel Jakub Dawidek p...@freebsd.org wrote:
PS. Do you know your change breaks all current ZFS installation if
stripesize is defined for a provider?
# zpool create tank ada0
(upgrade
On Tue, Dec 07, 2010 at 01:31:27PM +0200, Alexander Motin wrote:
Not necessary. Some places indeed may have some legacy requirements,
for example, in theory MBR want partition to be aligned to track
boundary (but I've seen many pre-formatted SD cards with MBR
violating it to align partition to
on 07/12/2010 13:51 Bruce Cran said the following:
On Tue, Dec 07, 2010 at 01:31:27PM +0200, Alexander Motin wrote:
Not necessary. Some places indeed may have some legacy requirements,
for example, in theory MBR want partition to be aligned to track
boundary (but I've seen many pre-formatted
on 07/12/2010 14:10 Erik Trulsson said the following:
On Tue, Dec 07, 2010 at 01:57:04PM +0200, Andriy Gapon wrote:
And another reason is that modern drives do not actually report any CHS
parameters, so I don't even know where we get them and how we (pretend to)
know
we track boundaries are.
From: Bruce Cran br...@cran.org.uk
Subject: Re: svn commit: r216230 -
head/sys/cddl/contrib/opensolaris/uts/common/fs/zfs
Date: Tue, 7 Dec 2010 11:51:06 +
On Tue, Dec 07, 2010 at 01:31:27PM +0200, Alexander Motin wrote:
Not necessary. Some places indeed may have some legacy requirements
From: Erik Trulsson ertr1...@student.uu.se
Subject: Re: svn commit: r216230 -
head/sys/cddl/contrib/opensolaris/uts/common/fs/zfs
Date: Tue, 7 Dec 2010 13:10:58 +0100
On Tue, Dec 07, 2010 at 01:57:04PM +0200, Andriy Gapon wrote:
on 07/12/2010 13:51 Bruce Cran said the following:
On Tue
On 12/07/2010 03:51, Bruce Cran wrote:
On Tue, Dec 07, 2010 at 01:31:27PM +0200, Alexander Motin wrote:
Not necessary. Some places indeed may have some legacy requirements,
for example, in theory MBR want partition to be aligned to track
boundary (but I've seen many pre-formatted SD cards with
On 7 December 2010 12:31, Pawel Jakub Dawidek p...@freebsd.org wrote:
On Tue, Dec 07, 2010 at 12:25:28PM +0100, Ivan Voras wrote:
On 7 December 2010 11:21, Pawel Jakub Dawidek p...@freebsd.org wrote:
PS. Do you know your change breaks all current ZFS installation if
stripesize is defined
On Tue, 7 Dec 2010, Doug Barton wrote:
On 12/07/2010 03:51, Bruce Cran wrote:
From a new installation of Windows 7 and FreeBSD CURRENT:
GEOM: ada0: partition 3 does not start on a track boundary.
GEOM: ada0: partition 3 does not end on a track boundary.
GEOM: ada0: partition 2 does not start
On 6 December 2010 19:44, Pawel Jakub Dawidek p...@freebsd.org wrote:
On Mon, Dec 06, 2010 at 12:18:03PM +, Ivan Voras wrote:
Author: ivoras
Date: Mon Dec 6 12:18:02 2010
New Revision: 216230
URL: http://svn.freebsd.org/changeset/base/216230
Log:
Use GEOM stripesize field when
On 6 December 2010 20:22, Pawel Jakub Dawidek p...@freebsd.org wrote:
On Mon, Dec 06, 2010 at 07:44:53PM +0100, Pawel Jakub Dawidek wrote:
On Mon, Dec 06, 2010 at 12:18:03PM +, Ivan Voras wrote:
Author: ivoras
Date: Mon Dec 6 12:18:02 2010
New Revision: 216230
URL:
On Monday, December 06, 2010 2:53:27 pm Pawel Jakub Dawidek wrote:
On Mon, Dec 06, 2010 at 08:35:36PM +0100, Ivan Voras wrote:
Please persuade me on technical grounds why ashift, a property
intended for address alignment, should not be set in this way. If your
answer is I don't know but you
Firstly, thank you, your explanations and questions are very good and
address the problems in a good way to discuss about it. I respect that
you took the time to write this answer!
On 6 December 2010 20:53, Pawel Jakub Dawidek p...@freebsd.org wrote:
On Mon, Dec 06, 2010 at 08:35:36PM +0100,
On 6 December 2010 21:18, John Baldwin j...@freebsd.org wrote:
On Monday, December 06, 2010 2:53:27 pm Pawel Jakub Dawidek wrote:
On Mon, Dec 06, 2010 at 08:35:36PM +0100, Ivan Voras wrote:
Please persuade me on technical grounds why ashift, a property
intended for address alignment, should
On 06.12.2010 22:18, John Baldwin wrote:
On Monday, December 06, 2010 2:53:27 pm Pawel Jakub Dawidek wrote:
On Mon, Dec 06, 2010 at 08:35:36PM +0100, Ivan Voras wrote:
Please persuade me on technical grounds why ashift, a property
intended for address alignment, should not be set in this way.
On Mon, Dec 06, 2010 at 09:31:39PM +0100, Ivan Voras wrote:
For what it's worth, apparently linux has the concept of physical
and logical sector sizes (possibly in addition to stripe size),
with physical being 4096 and logical 512, for example:
# hdparm -I /dev/sde | grep size
Logical
On 6 December 2010 22:16, Bruce Cran br...@cran.org.uk wrote:
On Mon, Dec 06, 2010 at 09:31:39PM +0100, Ivan Voras wrote:
For what it's worth, apparently linux has the concept of physical
and logical sector sizes (possibly in addition to stripe size),
with physical being 4096 and logical 512,
On 06.12.2010 23:22, Ivan Voras wrote:
On 6 December 2010 22:16, Bruce Cranbr...@cran.org.uk wrote:
On Mon, Dec 06, 2010 at 09:31:39PM +0100, Ivan Voras wrote:
For what it's worth, apparently linux has the concept of physical
and logical sector sizes (possibly in addition to stripe size),
on 07/12/2010 00:00 John Baldwin said the following:
It is probably the 4K logical sector size that needs to
come up with a new field, not vice versa.
Just expressing my overall confusion - 4K would be the physical size and 512
would be the logical one? My thinking: on a platter it's a 4K
26 matches
Mail list logo
