On Aug 30, 2013, at 12:55 PM, Chris Murphy <lists@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote: > > On Aug 29, 2013, at 9:38 PM, Dave Chinner <david@xxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote: >> >> So, what dm-thinp is trying to tell us is that the minimum >> *physical* IO size is 512 bytes (i.e. /sys/.../physical_block_size) >> but the efficient IO size is 256k. So dm-thinp is exposing the >> information incorrectly. What it shoul dbe doing is setting both the >> minimum_io_size and the optimal_io_size to the same value of 256k… > > Should I file a bug? Against lvm2? > > I think so. They may already be aware of it but better to not lose it... Eric > > Chris Murphy > _______________________________________________ > xfs mailing list > xfs@xxxxxxxxxxx > http://oss.sgi.com/mailman/listinfo/xfs > _______________________________________________ xfs mailing list xfs@xxxxxxxxxxx http://oss.sgi.com/mailman/listinfo/xfs
