Matthias Schniedermeyer put forth on 2/19/2011 4:02 AM: > On 18.02.2011 21:53, Stan Hoeppner wrote: >> Fist, sorry for the length. I can tend to get windy talking shop. :) >> >> Andrew Klaassen put forth on 2/18/2011 2:31 PM: >> >>> It's IBM and LSI gear, so I'm crossing my fingers that a Linux install >>> will be relatively painless. >> >> Ahh, good. At least, so far it seems so. ;) >> >>> I thought that the filesystem block size was still limited to the kernel >>> page size, which is 4K on x86 systems. >>> >>> http://oss.sgi.com/projects/xfs/ >>> >>> "The maximum filesystem block size is the page size of the kernel, which >>> is 4K on x86 architecture." >>> >>> Is this no longer true? It would be awesome news if it wasn't. >> >> My mistake. It would appear you are limited to the page size, which, as >> I mentioned, is still 8 KiB for most distros. > > You confuse that with STACK-size. Yes, I did. However... > The page-size is, and has always been, 4 KiB (on X86). To bring this back around to the OP's original question, do you agree or disagree with my assertion that a 64 KiB XFS block size will yield little if any advantage over a 4 KiB block size, and may in fact have some disadvantages, specifically with small file random IO? -- Stan _______________________________________________ xfs mailing list xfs@xxxxxxxxxxx http://oss.sgi.com/mailman/listinfo/xfs
