On 9/16/17 11:43 AM, Gionatan Danti wrote: > Il 12-09-2017 07:24 Gionatan Danti ha scritto: >> Hi Eric, >> so no performance decrease is expected by letting the journal to be >> aligned to 512 byte boundary, even on an underlying 512e/4K disk? I don't think I said that - this is the first time you've mentioned /alignment/, and I've seen no indication of your alignment one way or another. >> Thanks. > > Hi all and sorry for the bump... > > So, just to be sure: there is *no* performance penalty in creating an XFS filesystem with 512B sector size on a 512e/4Kn disk (which is not recognized as an AF disk due to the ZVOL in-between)? > > Or should I use "-b size=4k" with mkfs.xfs? that specifies a 4k block size, which is already the default. You're conflating a lot of issues here - log alignment, sector size, physical & logical block size presented by both the underlying storage and the zvol ... I cannot speak to zvols, as I have no experience with them. But if the underlying storage is 512e/4k then you may want to specify the 4k /sector/ size with -s size=4k. -Eric > Thanks. > -- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-xfs" in the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
