On 10/29/14 1:37 PM, Brian Foster wrote: > On Tue, Oct 28, 2014 at 12:35:29PM -0500, Eric Sandeen wrote: >> Today, this geometry: >> >> # modprobe scsi_debug opt_blks=2048 dev_size_mb=2048 >> # blockdev --getpbsz --getss --getiomin --getioopt /dev/sdd >> 512 >> 512 >> 512 >> 1048576 >> >> will result in a warning at mkfs time, like this: >> >> # mkfs.xfs -f -d su=64k,sw=12 -l su=64k /dev/sdd >> mkfs.xfs: Specified data stripe width 1536 is not the same as the volume stripe width 2048 >> >> because our geometry discovery thinks it looks like a >> valid striping setup which the commandline is overriding. >> However, a stripe unit of 512 really isn't indicative of >> a proper stripe geometry. >> > > So the assumption is that the storage reports a non-physical block size > for minimum and optimal I/O sizes for geometry detection. There was a > real world scenario of this, right? Any idea of the configuration > details (e.g., raid layout) that resulted in an increased optimal I/O > size but not minimum I/O size? Stan? :) > This seems reasonable to me and the code looks fine, save a trailing > whitespace instance below. Doh! >:( ;) thanks. > I'm just curious if there are any weird > corner cases where there's value in the reported optimal I/O size or the > real world situation was just noise. yeah, hard to know - How *would* you use it? -Eric _______________________________________________ xfs mailing list xfs@xxxxxxxxxxx http://oss.sgi.com/mailman/listinfo/xfs
