From owner-freebsd-questions@freebsd.org Tue Sep 5 18:20:52 2017 Return-Path: Delivered-To: freebsd-questions@mailman.ysv.freebsd.org Received: from mx1.freebsd.org (mx1.freebsd.org [IPv6:2001:1900:2254:206a::19:1]) by mailman.ysv.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 9FC2FE16D0E for ; Tue, 5 Sep 2017 18:20:52 +0000 (UTC) (envelope-from lcn@fastmail.net) Received: from out1-smtp.messagingengine.com (out1-smtp.messagingengine.com [66.111.4.25]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384 (256/256 bits)) (Client did not present a certificate) by mx1.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 02E0C38C2 for ; Tue, 5 Sep 2017 18:20:51 +0000 (UTC) (envelope-from lcn@fastmail.net) Received: from compute7.internal (compute7.nyi.internal [10.202.2.47]) by mailout.nyi.internal (Postfix) with ESMTP id 6FEE020F4D; Tue, 5 Sep 2017 14:20:50 -0400 (EDT) Received: from frontend1 ([10.202.2.160]) by compute7.internal (MEProxy); Tue, 05 Sep 2017 14:20:50 -0400 DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=fastmail.net; h= cc:content-transfer-encoding:content-type:date:from:in-reply-to :message-id:mime-version:references:subject:to:x-me-sender :x-me-sender:x-sasl-enc:x-sasl-enc; s=fm1; bh=7cDcuGKE8Tm0Lt70u7 /spCvny0wlX8JkrYeFn+VptL8=; b=N0QAhUZDU5N6pH+uxE9pB+FIsrzusMjN0m FQBOAcNfEvvF/w+v69R5LvZBP5YwHMYqIZ+B2z4U8IU8XphaodoPgCw7PoTKuNBJ Z05M/fj2elByf9PkSJ0co6EthMLYed9oGfgcf0resu0EZKLrJBOUKP3iV8yL6whd sEk9KLfgVcCiRUr8Hx9KZC2ekcscw6gEain3anv+is3cBhr88kN9Dfx4aRTC2UgJ 9i+doTFkqg1IDrfo3xP8e9SJiKsWzxRLkpb/3P4qKWcEi5Uoy4cSI3CC2NsnGKTg uyNBVeQe2YqZew7Gf9xKQYQCbSQfENS9DPyNDzdEzuLWgq2Yz5DA== DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d= messagingengine.com; h=cc:content-transfer-encoding:content-type :date:from:in-reply-to:message-id:mime-version:references :subject:to:x-me-sender:x-me-sender:x-sasl-enc:x-sasl-enc; s= fm1; bh=7cDcuGKE8Tm0Lt70u7/spCvny0wlX8JkrYeFn+VptL8=; b=Qeu2K9k/ 3EnXSXDZcia0QMYUSdVpKCgQvSPeuNNW7rVoxYCLOz29juZ0je8UDtv71qAzmxBX zCcgfvPPigiVt32qC5/NJWjw56rWocf56Zhboj/oDFJU03zCkBj95phZXITCHkix IcZFF6a2RDLVRkTLWMAZ+XXByynTWBmVp1hQfhjfucwzXE5C74dQ2/iF0VF1/wvQ psMRsnf7AXgJ95MT6/JfEplasIVEnwFT76OFVQ1U9VBgCufp99+OTPnE8Kn1gL2f GZ25/SZIAOsWBfuufRTuTeRPPyWP82vzfm99HGNCzYUkohkcSI11Uju5a6thwFzj C2YZAxHOf1015Q== X-ME-Sender: X-Sasl-enc: 7+dnL2Z7tUbLYWZAl+dsoU2ncT5ffMmSAVYNOotp8+Cm 1504635650 Received: from [192.168.1.104] (109-170-180-151.xdsl.murphx.net [109.170.180.151]) by mail.messagingengine.com (Postfix) with ESMTPA id F26BF7FA78; Tue, 5 Sep 2017 14:20:49 -0400 (EDT) Subject: Re: Sector-size and advanced format (4k) disks To: =?UTF-8?Q?Trond_Endrest=c3=b8l?= Cc: freebsd-questions@freebsd.org References: <60623dab-3041-386d-4b19-9cc2e42c2424@fastmail.net> From: Louie Cardone-Noott Message-ID: Date: Tue, 5 Sep 2017 19:20:49 +0100 User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows NT 10.0; WOW64; rv:52.0) Gecko/20100101 Thunderbird/52.3.0 MIME-Version: 1.0 In-Reply-To: Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8; format=flowed Content-Language: en-US Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit X-BeenThere: freebsd-questions@freebsd.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.23 Precedence: list List-Id: User questions List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Tue, 05 Sep 2017 18:20:52 -0000 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