From owner-freebsd-questions@FreeBSD.ORG Wed Dec 17 20:29:41 2014 Return-Path: Delivered-To: freebsd-questions@freebsd.org Received: from mx1.freebsd.org (mx1.freebsd.org [IPv6:2001:1900:2254:206a::19:1]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher AECDH-AES256-SHA (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by hub.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 054EF3B7 for ; Wed, 17 Dec 2014 20:29:41 +0000 (UTC) Received: from smarthost1.sentex.ca (smarthost1.sentex.ca [IPv6:2607:f3e0:0:1::12]) (using TLSv1 with cipher DHE-RSA-AES256-SHA (256/256 bits)) (Client CN "smarthost.sentex.ca", Issuer "smarthost.sentex.ca" (not verified)) by mx1.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id C1BD4174B for ; Wed, 17 Dec 2014 20:29:40 +0000 (UTC) Received: from [IPv6:2607:f3e0:0:4:f025:8813:7603:7e4a] (saphire3.sentex.ca [IPv6:2607:f3e0:0:4:f025:8813:7603:7e4a]) by smarthost1.sentex.ca (8.14.9/8.14.9) with ESMTP id sBHKTelv070313; Wed, 17 Dec 2014 15:29:40 -0500 (EST) (envelope-from mike@sentex.net) Message-ID: <5491E7AF.2020006@sentex.net> Date: Wed, 17 Dec 2014 15:29:35 -0500 From: Mike Tancsa Organization: Sentex Communications User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows NT 6.1; WOW64; rv:31.0) Gecko/20100101 Thunderbird/31.3.0 MIME-Version: 1.0 To: jd1008 , freebsd-questions@freebsd.org Subject: Re: zfs and 512/4096 sector sizes References: <5491E462.2020902@sentex.net> <5491E5A0.9090306@gmail.com> In-Reply-To: <5491E5A0.9090306@gmail.com> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=windows-1252; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Scanned-By: MIMEDefang 2.75 X-BeenThere: freebsd-questions@freebsd.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.18-1 Precedence: list List-Id: User questions List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Wed, 17 Dec 2014 20:29:41 -0000 On 12/17/2014 3:20 PM, jd1008 wrote: > > On 12/17/2014 01:15 PM, Mike Tancsa wrote: >> status: One or more devices are configured to use a non-native block >> size. >> Expect reduced performance. > The status report does not identify the offending drive, > so if you remove the drive (instead of replacing it), > do you still get the same status report? Actually, it did identify it initially. ada0 was the offending 4096k sector drive. I replaced it, with a 512/512 sector drive, but the error didnt go away. The drives in the set are all now 512 raidz1-1 ONLINE 0 0 0 ada11 ONLINE 0 0 0 block size: 512B configured, 4096B native ada1 ONLINE 0 0 0 ada8 ONLINE 0 0 0 ada9 ONLINE 0 0 0 # camcontrol identify ada11 | grep "sector.*physical" sector size logical 512, physical 512, offset 0 # camcontrol identify ada1 | grep "sector.*physical" sector size logical 512, physical 512, offset 0 # camcontrol identify ada8 | grep "sector.*physical" sector size logical 512, physical 512, offset 0 # camcontrol identify ada9 | grep "sector.*physical" sector size logical 512, physical 512, offset 0 ---Mike -- ------------------- Mike Tancsa, tel +1 519 651 3400 Sentex Communications, mike@sentex.net Providing Internet services since 1994 www.sentex.net Cambridge, Ontario Canada http://www.tancsa.com/