From owner-freebsd-fs Fri Jan 31 17:12:54 2003 Delivered-To: freebsd-fs@freebsd.org Received: from mx1.FreeBSD.org (mx1.freebsd.org [216.136.204.125]) by hub.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id DF5B937B401 for ; Fri, 31 Jan 2003 17:12:52 -0800 (PST) Received: from heron.mail.pas.earthlink.net (heron.mail.pas.earthlink.net [207.217.120.189]) by mx1.FreeBSD.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 5F27A43F43 for ; Fri, 31 Jan 2003 17:12:52 -0800 (PST) (envelope-from tlambert2@mindspring.com) Received: from pool0052.cvx40-bradley.dialup.earthlink.net ([216.244.42.52] helo=mindspring.com) by heron.mail.pas.earthlink.net with asmtp (SSLv3:RC4-MD5:128) (Exim 3.33 #1) id 18emD9-0001P6-00; Fri, 31 Jan 2003 17:12:48 -0800 Message-ID: <3E3B1E96.B76237AD@mindspring.com> Date: Fri, 31 Jan 2003 17:10:46 -0800 From: Terry Lambert X-Mailer: Mozilla 4.79 [en] (Win98; U) X-Accept-Language: en MIME-Version: 1.0 To: Nathan Hawkins Cc: Steve Byan , freebsd-fs@FreeBSD.ORG, tech-kern@netbsd.org Subject: Re: DEV_B_SIZE References: <20030131195042.GD6243@quic.net> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-ELNK-Trace: b1a02af9316fbb217a47c185c03b154d40683398e744b8a4dd2b123101f54ac3b9604623d3bb7044350badd9bab72f9c350badd9bab72f9c350badd9bab72f9c Sender: owner-freebsd-fs@FreeBSD.ORG Precedence: bulk List-ID: List-Archive: (Web Archive) List-Help: (List Instructions) List-Subscribe: List-Unsubscribe: X-Loop: FreeBSD.org Nathan Hawkins wrote: > You might want to talk with Veritas. I'm pretty sure their Volume > Manager's log subdisks assume 512-byte sectors. Yes, this is true. It would cause a problem for VXFS, at least the VXFS whose source code I disked around with for USL's use on UnixWare; almost all the directory entry management code is verbatim from the USL UFS sources. I know that AIX *would not* have a problem on the old HPFS, but the OS/2 HPFS might have a problem. I think Solaris, and anyone else using a UFS derived FS would probably have a problem with directory entry management, and for those areas I've already noted. I don't know if the NXFS I wrote for Novell's NetWare for UNIX product is still in use anywhere, or not, these days, but if it is, the it would have a problem, too, both in directory ops, and in secondary inode management for EA's and resource forks. The SGI XFS people, Novell, and the GFS people would also be good ones to ask for input. Microsoft and Apple, too, if it weren't obvious. 8-). > More generally, what impact would this have on existing RAID > implementations, hardware or software? This is a potentially more > damaging impact than filesystem semantics. The real question is sector sparing, when it comes to that, and whether it's on 4K boundaries or not, etc.. For the most part, RAID that does parity should not care, but RAID 0 and 1 may be a problem during a power failure, unless PHK's issue about the write caching, and the inability to disconnect the bus on the data portion of the write, is fixed. -- Terry To Unsubscribe: send mail to majordomo@FreeBSD.org with "unsubscribe freebsd-fs" in the body of the message