Hi! > > - some disk makers have sort of agreed not to do that, and > > expect forever to hide the larger underlying sector size > > behind a virtual 512 (of course, this imposes alignment > > restrictions, but that's a smaller problem) > > yes, this is happening also. > > There will be 3 types of disks eventually: > 1) those that report a 512-byte sector size, and are really a 512-byte > size. This is nearly all disks today. > > 2) those that report a 512-byte sector size, but are really a > 4096-byte size, and the drive does the conversions and > read/modify/write. T10 and T13 are looking to add commands to > expose this different underlying physical sector size so the OS > could be aware of it. This is primarily being driven to mitigate > any problems that may happen with "legacy" OSs that are not aware > of the difference. How is this going to work with journaling? This has nasty property that if you are writing to sector n during powerfail, disk may also kill sectors n-3, n-2 and n-1..... and that's bad right? 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-ide" in the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
