On Thu, Mar 09, 2023 at 03:49:50PM -0500, James Bottomley wrote: > On Thu, 2023-03-09 at 10:23 -0500, Martin K. Petersen wrote: > > > This is not to say I think larger block sizes is in any way a bad > > > idea ... I just think that given the history, it will be driven by > > > application needs rather than what the manufacturers tell us. > > > > I think it would be beneficial for Linux to support filesystem blocks > > larger than the page size. Based on experience outlined above, I am > > not convinced larger logical block sizes will get much traction. But > > that doesn't prevent devices from advertising larger > > physical/minimum/optimal I/O sizes and for us to handle those more > > gracefully than we currently do. > > Right, I was wondering if we could try to persuade the Manufacturers to > advertise a more meaningful optimal I/O size ... Advocacy for using meaningful values is a real thing, Dan Helmick talked about this at the last SDC 2022 at least for NVMe: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3_M92RlVgIQ&ab_channel=SNIAVideo A big future question is of course how / when to use these for filesystems. Should there be, for instance a 'mkfs --optimal-bs' or something which may look whatever hints the media uses ? Or do we just leaves the magic incantations to the admins? Luis
