On Mon 2010-01-11 08:52:56, H. Peter Anvin wrote:
> On 01/11/2010 06:05 AM, Pavel Machek wrote:
> >On Fri 2010-01-08 13:43:47, H. Peter Anvin wrote:
> >>On 01/08/2010 01:33 AM, Karel Zak wrote:
> >>>
> >>>fdisk:
> >>> - the fdisk command aligns newly created partitions to minimum_io_size
> >>> boundary ("minimum_io_size" is physical sector size or stripe chunk
> >>> size on RAIDs).
> >>>
> >>> - the fdisk command supports disks with alignment_offset now.
> >>>
> >>
> >>I think we should align, by default, much more aggressively than that --
> >>because frequently we just don't know what the real physical alignment
> >>is (think of flash media, which uses large erase blocks underneath.)
> >
> >Flash has special mapping layer, and does not care (SD/MMC), or is a
> >raw nand and can't be used as block device (smartmedia).
> >
>
> Uhm, that's just plain wrong.
>
> It doesn't matter if there is a "special mapping layer" -- if you're
> crossing multiple erase blocks you're still having more churn in
> your flash translation layer, with more wear on the device, and
> lower performance than if you didn't.
Eraseblocks really should not matter. It is not as if each logical
sector belongs to one eraseblock....
(OTOH, maybe the eraseblock *groups* that are basis for wear-leveling
do, or maybe firmware is doing something really really strange.)
Pavel
--
(english) http://www.livejournal.com/~pavelmachek
(cesky, pictures) http://atrey.karlin.mff.cuni.cz/~pavel/picture/horses/blog.html
--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-fsdevel" in
the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
