On Sun, Nov 27, 2011 at 05:05:23PM -0600, Eric Sandeen wrote: > > i.e. do we have any guarantee at all that a PBS sized IO will either > > wholly complete or wholly fail when PBS != sector size? And if not, > > why is this a change we should make given it appears to me to > > violate a fundamental assumption of the filesystem design? > > I had the expectation that physical block size WAS the fundamental/atomic > IO size for the disk, and anything smaller required read/modify/write. > So I made this suggestion (and I think hch concurred) so that we weren't > doing log IOs which required RMW & translation. Yes, that is how it is defined. _______________________________________________ xfs mailing list xfs@xxxxxxxxxxx http://oss.sgi.com/mailman/listinfo/xfs
