Date: Tue, 9 Apr 2019 07:21:57 +0700 From: Eugene Grosbein <eugen@grosbein.net> To: "Kevin P. Neal" <kpn@neutralgood.org>, Peter Jeremy <peter@rulingia.com> Cc: freebsd-fs@freebsd.org, freebsd-stable@freebsd.org, tech-lists <tech-lists@zyxst.net>, freebsd-geom@freebsd.org, Alexander Motin <mav@FreeBSD.org> Subject: Re: about zfs and ashift and changing ashift on existing zpool Message-ID: <9590cb82-64be-a2f9-a812-36f0ea324e4d@grosbein.net> In-Reply-To: <20190409000009.GA65388@neutralgood.org> References: <20190407153639.GA41753@rpi3.zyxst.net> <20190408212822.GD13734@server.rulingia.com> <20190409000009.GA65388@neutralgood.org>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
09.04.2019 7:00, Kevin P. Neal wrote: >> My guess (given that only ada1 is reporting a blocksize mismatch) is that >> your disks reported a 512B native blocksize. In the absence of any override, >> ZFS will then build an ashift=9 pool. [skip] > smartctl 7.0 2018-12-30 r4883 [FreeBSD 11.2-RELEASE-p4 amd64] (local build) > Copyright (C) 2002-18, Bruce Allen, Christian Franke, www.smartmontools.org > > === START OF INFORMATION SECTION === > Vendor: SEAGATE > Product: ST2400MM0129 > Revision: C003 > Compliance: SPC-4 > User Capacity: 2,400,476,553,216 bytes [2.40 TB] > Logical block size: 512 bytes > Physical block size: 4096 bytes Maybe it't time to prefer "Physical block size" over "Logical block size" in relevant GEOMs like GEOM_DISK, so upper levels such as ZFS would do the right thing automatically.
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?9590cb82-64be-a2f9-a812-36f0ea324e4d>