Date: Tue, 5 Sep 2017 19:20:49 +0100 From: Louie Cardone-Noott <lcn@fastmail.net> To: =?UTF-8?Q?Trond_Endrest=c3=b8l?= <Trond.Endrestol@fagskolen.gjovik.no> Cc: freebsd-questions@freebsd.org Subject: Re: Sector-size and advanced format (4k) disks Message-ID: <a415428e-9962-e362-3944-618796d9b81a@fastmail.net> In-Reply-To: <alpine.BSF.2.21.1709051451210.87288@mail.fig.ol.no> References: <60623dab-3041-386d-4b19-9cc2e42c2424@fastmail.net> <alpine.BSF.2.21.1709051451210.87288@mail.fig.ol.no>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
Hi Trond, Thanks for your reply. On 05/09/2017 14:06, Trond Endrestøl wrote: > Changing the sector size is not recommended according to newfs(8): ... Indeed, I guess it's *really* not recommended to deviate from 512 B sector size then... > Maybe Dr. McKusick's lectures can enlighten you to make a wise choice: > > Keynote Address: A Brief History of the BSD Fast Filesystem (FAST '15) > https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TMjgShRuYbg This is interesting. At 50.00 he implies that using a 32 k blocksize, 4 k fragment-size, and 512 B sector-size is the 'right' way to use a modern HDD. Based on the above I suppose my assumption that the sector-size should match the HDD physical sector size was wrong. Pretending that the sectors are still 512 B, while making everything align to 4 k, and letting the HDD do its magic seems to be best. Louie
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?a415428e-9962-e362-3944-618796d9b81a>