On 09/30/2010 11:30 AM, Ted Ts'o wrote: > On Tue, Sep 28, 2010 at 04:36:42PM -0500, Eric Sandeen wrote: >> Ok, then it sounds like mkfs.ext4's refusal to make fs blocksize less >> than device physical sectorsize without -F is broken, and that should >> be removed. I'd say issue a warning in the case but if there's a 16k >> physical device maybe there's no point in warning either? > > If the device physical sectorsize is that big, should we perhaps use > that as a hint to align writes to that blocks aligned with that > physical sectorsize? Right now we use the optimal I/O size, but if > the optimal I/O size is not specified and the physical sectorsize is, I can't keep track of all the parameters, is it ever true that optimal I/O size isn't specified? > say, 16k or 32k, maybe we should use to calculate for > s_raid_stripe_width? Perhaps, though really ext4 still doesn't do -that- much with the value, anyway... -Eric -- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-ext4" in the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
