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 zfs-discuss@opensolaris.org http://mail.opensolaris.org/mailman/listinfo/zfs-discuss
