On Sat, Nov 12, 2011 at 08:15:31AM -0500, David Magda wrote:
> On Nov 12, 2011, at 00:55, Richard Elling wrote:
> > Better than ?
> > If the disks advertise 512 bytes, the only way around it is with a 
> > whitelist. I would
> > be rather surprised if Oracle sells 4KB sector disks for Solaris systems?
> Solaris 10. OpenSolaris.
> But would it be surprising to use SANs with Solaris? Or perhaps run Solaris 
> under some kind of virtualized environment where the virtual disk has a 
> particular block size? Or maybe SSDs, which tend to read/write/delete in 
> certain block sizes?
> In these situations simply assuming 512 may slow things down.
> And if Solaris 11 is going to be around for a decade or so, I'd hazard to 
> guess that 512B sector disks will become less and less prevalent as time goes 
> on. Might as well enable the functionality now, when 4K is rarer, so you have 
> more time to test and tunes things out?rather than later when you can 
> potentially be left scrambling.
> As Pasi Kärkkäinen mentions, there's not much you can do if the disks lies 
> (just as has been seen with disks that lie about flushing the cache). This is 
> mostly a temporary kludge for legacy's sake. More and more disks will be 
> truthful as times goes on.

Most "4kB"/sector disks already today properly report both the physical (4kB) 
and logical (512b) sector sizes.
It sounds like *solaris is only checking the logical (512b) sector size, not 
the physical (4kB) sector size..

-- Pasi

zfs-discuss mailing list

Reply via email to