On 1/23/15 9:40 AM, Dewangga Bachrul Alam wrote: > Hi, > > I'm sorry, didnt fill any information here, but here is my nodes details. > > $ uname -a > Linux catalyst-db01.jkt3d.xxx 2.6.32-504.3.3.el6.x86_64 #1 SMP Wed Dec > 17 01:55:02 UTC 2014 x86_64 x86_64 x86_64 GNU/Linux > > $ cat /etc/redhat-release > CentOS release 6.6 (Final) > > The xfs and partition table build from anaconda from first install, > instalation came from CentOS 6.6. But it's weird, only this node has 4k > sector size, the others is 512. > > catalyst-db01$ yum history info 1 | grep xfsprogs | fpaste > Uploading (0.2KiB)... > http://ur1.ca/jihyu -> http://paste.fedoraproject.org/173606/27434142 so xfsprogs v3.1.1 This went into v3.1.8: commit 287d168b550857ce40e04b5f618d7eb91b87022f Author: Eric Sandeen <sandeen@xxxxxxxxxxx> Date: Thu Mar 1 22:46:35 2012 -0600 mkfs.xfs: properly handle physical sector size This splits the fs_topology structure "sectorsize" into logical & physical, and gets both via blkid_get_topology(). This primarily allows us to default to using the physical sectorsize for mkfs's "sector size" value, the fundamental size of any IOs the filesystem will perform. We reduce mkfs.xfs's "sector size" to logical if a block size < physical sector size is specified. This is suboptimal, but permissable. For block size < sector size, differentiate the error message based on whether the sector size was manually specified, or deduced. Signed-off-by: Eric Sandeen <sandeen@xxxxxxxxxx> Reviewed-by: Dave Chinner <dchinner@xxxxxxxxxx> but was backported to the RHEL6 xfsprogs: * Tue Sep 25 2012 Eric Sandeen <sandeen@xxxxxxxxxx> 3.1.1-8 - mkfs.xfs: better handle misaligned 4k devices (#836433) - mkfs.xfs: default to physical sectorsize (#836433) So, not *exactly* a bug, because the assumption that 512-byte DIO will always work is not a good one, but the commit I mentioned in my first email will let 512-byte DIOs work again. I'd tell you to file a bug with your RHEL support people, but Centos ... ;) We probably should get that kernel commit into RHEL6 if possible. I'm kind of surprised we haven't seen other reports. But, if you ever wind up with hard 4k/4k drives, your database still won't work. On any filesystem. :) If you don't mind following up with this informtation in the other forum, that might help others. -Eric _______________________________________________ xfs mailing list xfs@xxxxxxxxxxx http://oss.sgi.com/mailman/listinfo/xfs
