Date: Mon, 6 Dec 2010 20:35:36 +0100 From: Ivan Voras <ivoras@freebsd.org> To: Pawel Jakub Dawidek <pjd@freebsd.org> Cc: svn-src-head@freebsd.org, svn-src-all@freebsd.org, src-committers@freebsd.org Subject: Re: svn commit: r216230 - head/sys/cddl/contrib/opensolaris/uts/common/fs/zfs Message-ID: <AANLkTine9rGq_cM4ruFXYq=-F7cMXcQAr-zKHuWoQs2z@mail.gmail.com> In-Reply-To: <20101206192238.GB1936@garage.freebsd.pl> References: <201012061218.oB6CI3oW032770@svn.freebsd.org> <20101206184453.GA1936@garage.freebsd.pl> <20101206192238.GB1936@garage.freebsd.pl>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
On 6 December 2010 20:22, Pawel Jakub Dawidek <pjd@freebsd.org> wrote: > On Mon, Dec 06, 2010 at 07:44:53PM +0100, Pawel Jakub Dawidek wrote: >> On Mon, Dec 06, 2010 at 12:18:03PM +0000, Ivan Voras wrote: >> > Author: ivoras >> > Date: Mon Dec =C2=A06 12:18:02 2010 >> > New Revision: 216230 >> > URL: http://svn.freebsd.org/changeset/base/216230 >> > >> > Log: >> > =C2=A0 Use GEOM stripesize field when calculating ashift. This will en= able correct >> > =C2=A0 alignment on drives with large sector sizes (e.g. 4 KiB) but th= e >> > =C2=A0 implementation might need to be revisited if devices with large= stripesizes >> > =C2=A0 appear (e.g. if RAID controllers or flash drives start using th= e field), >> > =C2=A0 probably by introducing a physsectorsize field in GEOM provider= s. >> >> Please back this out as soon as possible! >> >> > =C2=A0 Discussed with: mav, mostly silence on freebsd-geom@ and freebs= d-fs@ >> >> Guess why it wasn't picked up by anyone? > > In other words... Stop hack around. This is so irritating. > > If disk lies about its sector size, add quirks at the layer where disk > is discovered. Don't hack ZFS, UFS, any other file system and GEOM > classes, because its easiest for you. It would be best if you could just > leave it to mav@ who knows this area and knows what he is doing. Those > drive-by hacks of yours are really doing more evil than good. I regard your personal opinion on this topic in little regard, as you have too much of it. Please persuade me on technical grounds why ashift, a property intended for address alignment, should not be set in this way. If your answer is "I don't know but you are still wrong because I say so" I will respect it and back it out but only until I/we discuss the question with upstream ZFS developers. >From my POW, this is similar to changing UFS default fragment size to match stripesize, which is a patch I also intend to commit (after a review by mckusick, or course).
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?AANLkTine9rGq_cM4ruFXYq=-F7cMXcQAr-zKHuWoQs2z>