From owner-freebsd-fs@FreeBSD.ORG Wed Jul 10 11:10:44 2013 Return-Path: Delivered-To: freebsd-fs@freebsd.org Received: from mx1.freebsd.org (mx1.freebsd.org [IPv6:2001:1900:2254:206a::19:1]) by hub.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 2686ED3A; Wed, 10 Jul 2013 11:10:44 +0000 (UTC) (envelope-from prvs=1903808b5b=killing@multiplay.co.uk) Received: from mail1.multiplay.co.uk (mail1.multiplay.co.uk [85.236.96.23]) by mx1.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 5096715E8; Wed, 10 Jul 2013 11:10:43 +0000 (UTC) Received: from r2d2 ([82.69.141.170]) by mail1.multiplay.co.uk (mail1.multiplay.co.uk [85.236.96.23]) (MDaemon PRO v10.0.4) with ESMTP id md50004904388.msg; Wed, 10 Jul 2013 12:10:35 +0100 X-Spam-Processed: mail1.multiplay.co.uk, Wed, 10 Jul 2013 12:10:35 +0100 (not processed: message from valid local sender) X-MDDKIM-Result: neutral (mail1.multiplay.co.uk) X-MDRemoteIP: 82.69.141.170 X-Return-Path: prvs=1903808b5b=killing@multiplay.co.uk X-Envelope-From: killing@multiplay.co.uk Message-ID: <197F9EAB64AD4A1FBC4DD75F7255D55D@multiplay.co.uk> From: "Steven Hartland" To: "Borja Marcos" References: <86zjtupz3r.fsf@nine.des.no> <628C5D1AF6044488B708484203D70B7A@multiplay.co.uk> <774B60E8-19C2-4A3A-880D-0D8726DC6727@sarenet.es> Subject: Re: Make ZFS use the physical sector size when computing initial ashift Date: Wed, 10 Jul 2013 12:10:54 +0100 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; format=flowed; charset="iso-8859-1"; reply-type=original Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Priority: 3 X-MSMail-Priority: Normal X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook Express 6.00.2900.5931 X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V6.00.2900.6157 Cc: freebsd-fs@freebsd.org, =?iso-8859-1?Q?Dag-Erling_Sm=F8rgrav?= , zfs-devel@FreeBSD.org, ivoras@freebsd.org, freebsd-hackers@freebsd.org X-BeenThere: freebsd-fs@freebsd.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.14 Precedence: list List-Id: Filesystems List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Wed, 10 Jul 2013 11:10:44 -0000 There's lots more to consider when considering a way foward not least of all ashift isn't a zpool configuration option is per top level vdev, space consideration of moving from 512b to 4k, see previous and current discussions on zfs-devel@freebsd.org and zfs@lists.illumos.org for details. Regards Steve ----- Original Message ----- From: "Borja Marcos" On Jul 10, 2013, at 11:25 AM, Steven Hartland wrote: > If others are interested I've attached this as it achieves what we needed here so > may also be of use for others too. > > There's also a big discussion on illumos about this very subject ATM so I'm > monitoring that too. > > Hopefully there will be a nice conclusion come from that how people want to > proceed and we'll be able to get a change in that works for everyone. Hmm. I wonder if the simplest approach would be the better. I mean, adding a flag to zpool. At home I have a playground FreeBSD machine with a ZFS zmirror, and, you guessed it, I was careless when I purchased the components, I asked for two "1 TB drives" and that I got, but different models, one of them "advanced format" and the other one "classic". I don't think it's that bad to create a pool on a classic disk using 4 KB blocks, and it's quite likely that replacement disks will be 4 KB in the near future. Also, if you use SSDs the situation is similar. ================================================ This e.mail is private and confidential between Multiplay (UK) Ltd. and the person or entity to whom it is addressed. In the event of misdirection, the recipient is prohibited from using, copying, printing or otherwise disseminating it or any information contained in it. In the event of misdirection, illegible or incomplete transmission please telephone +44 845 868 1337 or return the E.mail to postmaster@multiplay.co.uk.