From owner-freebsd-bugs@freebsd.org Mon Aug 8 15:00:51 2016 Return-Path: Delivered-To: freebsd-bugs@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 AFFFABB2A7A for ; Mon, 8 Aug 2016 15:00:51 +0000 (UTC) (envelope-from bugzilla-noreply@freebsd.org) Received: from kenobi.freebsd.org (kenobi.freebsd.org [IPv6:2001:1900:2254:206a::16:76]) (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 84DFE1BE6 for ; Mon, 8 Aug 2016 15:00:51 +0000 (UTC) (envelope-from bugzilla-noreply@freebsd.org) Received: from bugs.freebsd.org ([127.0.1.118]) by kenobi.freebsd.org (8.15.2/8.15.2) with ESMTP id u78F0pP2023672 for ; Mon, 8 Aug 2016 15:00:51 GMT (envelope-from bugzilla-noreply@freebsd.org) From: bugzilla-noreply@freebsd.org To: freebsd-bugs@FreeBSD.org Subject: [Bug 211361] suggested boot partition size is too small, bsdinstall creates unaligned partitions Date: Mon, 08 Aug 2016 15:00:51 +0000 X-Bugzilla-Reason: AssignedTo X-Bugzilla-Type: changed X-Bugzilla-Watch-Reason: None X-Bugzilla-Product: Base System X-Bugzilla-Component: misc X-Bugzilla-Version: 11.0-STABLE X-Bugzilla-Keywords: patch, performance X-Bugzilla-Severity: Affects Many People X-Bugzilla-Who: nwhitehorn@FreeBSD.org X-Bugzilla-Status: Open X-Bugzilla-Resolution: X-Bugzilla-Priority: --- X-Bugzilla-Assigned-To: freebsd-bugs@FreeBSD.org X-Bugzilla-Flags: mfc-stable11? X-Bugzilla-Changed-Fields: Message-ID: In-Reply-To: References: Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable X-Bugzilla-URL: https://bugs.freebsd.org/bugzilla/ Auto-Submitted: auto-generated MIME-Version: 1.0 X-BeenThere: freebsd-bugs@freebsd.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.22 Precedence: list List-Id: Bug reports List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Mon, 08 Aug 2016 15:00:51 -0000 https://bugs.freebsd.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=3D211361 --- Comment #9 from Nathan Whitehorn --- I would like to see this done in the kernel preferred IO alignment reporting rather than the installer. This limits the amount of magic in the installer= and fixes similar issues in the rest of the system. There are three options to solve this problem, in general: 1. The kernel makes up a number. The installer, gpart, and sade align to th= at number. It may become stale if new, weird hardware appears. 2. The installer makes up a number and aligns to it. sade is the installer,= so it follows along. gpart doesn't and creates misaligned partitions by defaul= t on systems that currently have problems (as do other disk tools, like graid). = sade and gpart end up with different behaviors. The number may become stale in t= he same way. 3. The status quo. The kernel tries to figure out the right number, but it = is too small on some hardware. The installer, gpart, and sade align to that number. It is already wrong in some cases. #1 seems strictly better than #2 here. The numbers in both cases may become stale, but you don't have to make the same fix in a bunch of places in #1 or end up in a situation where gpart and the curses version of gpart (sade) ha= ve different behavior. It also makes ZFS and graid and whatever follow along instead of picking too-small IO chunks by default on affected systems. The = ZFS issue in particular is probably at least as serious as the alignment of UFS boot partitions. --=20 You are receiving this mail because: You are the assignee for the bug.=