From owner-freebsd-fs@FreeBSD.ORG Tue Sep 18 12:40:04 2012 Return-Path: Delivered-To: freebsd-fs@freebsd.org Received: from mx1.freebsd.org (mx1.freebsd.org [IPv6:2001:4f8:fff6::34]) by hub.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id CD92C106567D; Tue, 18 Sep 2012 12:40:04 +0000 (UTC) (envelope-from c.kworr@gmail.com) Received: from mail-ee0-f54.google.com (mail-ee0-f54.google.com [74.125.83.54]) by mx1.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 27EE68FC0A; Tue, 18 Sep 2012 12:40:03 +0000 (UTC) Received: by eeke52 with SMTP id e52so4141055eek.13 for ; Tue, 18 Sep 2012 05:39:57 -0700 (PDT) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=20120113; h=message-id:date:from:user-agent:mime-version:to:cc:subject :references:in-reply-to:content-type:content-transfer-encoding; bh=IKyKxpCK8Is+gtF7J8z9yhWBhayYNEYFS/LOsPG4UJI=; b=j0TD+egvjteELxTI6V+QcRQIgl2Q+iVxiUfSZ3dsLlpJh54uYlv1XWjBpf1nJHhULH HQaSh/02ARsXc8lO5EiYooFhnLK3PMtM67mMQYCYK7P0TgY5P9knkpF3KWkJTk6egod6 /NJasnVVAGJBj0c5Cm8SaW+GI1k/NNROzKKIDuefDM6qIgAd9VbTVljtrd+ruIIca6xI TsgVmkgiD+6SAMkndwNM60tnykbdIK4AZwiC0Q9iDPKCk/D1oQLaYj8qdqEPbdbB49kw DXMmjnJTJr7IhBsyhURhgBjQvhi2lLQkMWgcxIC8ZctdyaK/3SSYshYh2AqHmyP2OELO GWrg== Received: by 10.14.213.137 with SMTP id a9mr17191823eep.38.1347971997284; Tue, 18 Sep 2012 05:39:57 -0700 (PDT) Received: from green.local (90-224-132-95.pool.ukrtel.net. [95.132.224.90]) by mx.google.com with ESMTPS id k49sm36024104een.4.2012.09.18.05.39.55 (version=SSLv3 cipher=OTHER); Tue, 18 Sep 2012 05:39:55 -0700 (PDT) Message-ID: <50586B99.40108@gmail.com> Date: Tue, 18 Sep 2012 15:39:53 +0300 From: Volodymyr Kostyrko User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; FreeBSD amd64; rv:15.0) Gecko/20120911 Thunderbird/15.0.1 MIME-Version: 1.0 To: Gary Palmer References: <000a01cd90aa$0a277310$1e765930$@goelli.de> <5050461A.9050608@gmail.com> <000001cd9239$ed734c80$c859e580$@goelli.de> <5052EC5D.4060403@gmail.com> <000a01cd9274$0aa0bba0$1fe232e0$@goelli.de> <505322C9.70200@gmail.com> <000001cd9377$e9e9b010$bdbd1030$@goelli.de> <50559CD8.1070700@gmail.com> <000001cd94f1$a4157030$ec405090$@goelli.de> <50581033.4040102@gmail.com> <20120918112355.GB77784@in-addr.com> In-Reply-To: <20120918112355.GB77784@in-addr.com> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Cc: freebsd-fs@freebsd.org Subject: Re: AW: AW: AW: AW: AW: ZFS: Corrupted pool metadata after adding vdev to a pool - no opportunity to rescue data from healthy vdevs? Remove a vdev? Rewrite metadata? X-BeenThere: freebsd-fs@freebsd.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.5 Precedence: list List-Id: Filesystems List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Tue, 18 Sep 2012 12:40:05 -0000 18.09.2012 14:23, Gary Palmer wrote: >> From my point of view all hype about moving to 4k sectors is highly >> irrelevant to ZFS and current products on the market. >> >> 1. ZFS tends to use big recordsize for storing any data. This means most >> files on your drives are already stored in 128k sectors. Storing small >> tails in 512b or 4k sectors shouldn't give big difference. > > Performance testing has shown that running "advanced format" (aka 4kilobyte > sector disks) with 512 byte alignment with ZFS seriously degrades performance > compared to running with 4 kilobyte alignment. Please understand me correctly, this is only my point of view on the problem as I never saw any tests that show difference between correct alignment of _partitions_ and alignment on _records_ on ZFS. This area is not thoroughly covered with test data. -- Sphinx of black quartz judge my vow.