Date: Thu, 28 Apr 2016 07:31:11 +0200 From: Gerrit =?ISO-8859-1?Q?K=FChn?= <gerrit.kuehn@aei.mpg.de> To: Chris Watson <bsdunix44@gmail.com> Cc: Steven Hartland <killing@multiplay.co.uk>, freebsd-fs@freebsd.org Subject: Re: zfs on nvme: gnop breaks pool, zfs gets stuck Message-ID: <20160428073111.83029b9955c60622796c0202@aei.mpg.de> In-Reply-To: <B3C1CBE8-FCBC-4053-9B5B-EE9147D7A01E@gmail.com> References: <20160427152244.ff36ff74ae64c1f86fdc960a@aei.mpg.de> <20160427141436.GA60370@in-addr.com> <5720EFD8.60900@multiplay.co.uk> <B3C1CBE8-FCBC-4053-9B5B-EE9147D7A01E@gmail.com>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
On Wed, 27 Apr 2016 13:00:50 -0500 Chris Watson <bsdunix44@gmail.com> wrote about Re: zfs on nvme: gnop breaks pool, zfs gets stuck: CW> I think for most people, the gnop hack is what is documented on the CW> web. Hence why people are using it versus the ashift sysctl. If the CW> sysctl for ashift is not documented in the ZFS section of the CW> handbook, it probably should be. Yes, please. When you search for this, you find the gnop hack documented everywhere. This is the first time I read about the sysctl. Maybe another good idea would be to mention it in the manpage. cu Gerrit
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?20160428073111.83029b9955c60622796c0202>