Date: Fri, 31 Jan 2003 17:50:53 +0100 From: phk@freebsd.org To: Steve Byan <stephen_byan@maxtor.com> Cc: freebsd-fs@freebsd.org, tech-kern@netbsd.org Subject: Re: DEV_B_SIZE Message-ID: <2639.1044031853@critter.freebsd.dk> In-Reply-To: Your message of "Fri, 31 Jan 2003 11:30:18 EST." <4912E0FE-3539-11D7-B26B-00306548867E@maxtor.com>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
In message <4912E0FE-3539-11D7-B26B-00306548867E@maxtor.com>, Steve Byan writes : >I'd appreciate hearing examples where hiding the underlying physical >block size would break a file system, database, transaction processing >monitor, or whatever. Please let me know if I may forward your reply >to the committee. Thanks. If by "hide" you mean that there will be no way to discover the smallest atomic unit of writes, then you are right: it would be bad. Provided we can get the size of the smallest atomic unit of writes in a standardized, documented, mandatory way, we will have no problem coping with it: Using a 4k size is no problem for our current filesystem technologies and device sizes. It was my impression that already many drives write entire tracks as atomic units, at least we have had plenty of anecdotal evidence to this effect ? Poul-Henning (FreeBSD's disk-I/O wizard) -- Poul-Henning Kamp | UNIX since Zilog Zeus 3.20 phk@FreeBSD.ORG | TCP/IP since RFC 956 FreeBSD committer | BSD since 4.3-tahoe Never attribute to malice what can adequately be explained by incompetence. To Unsubscribe: send mail to majordomo@FreeBSD.org with "unsubscribe freebsd-fs" in the body of the message
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?2639.1044031853>