From owner-freebsd-hackers@FreeBSD.ORG Mon Jun 2 17:12:52 2014 Return-Path: Delivered-To: freebsd-hackers@freebsd.org Received: from mx1.freebsd.org (mx1.freebsd.org [IPv6:2001:1900:2254:206a::19:1]) (using TLSv1 with cipher ADH-AES256-SHA (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by hub.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 06256E50; Mon, 2 Jun 2014 17:12:52 +0000 (UTC) Received: from smtp1.multiplay.co.uk (smtp1.multiplay.co.uk [85.236.96.35]) by mx1.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id B85252DFB; Mon, 2 Jun 2014 17:12:51 +0000 (UTC) Received: by smtp1.multiplay.co.uk (Postfix, from userid 65534) id E56F520E7088C; Mon, 2 Jun 2014 17:12:50 +0000 (UTC) X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 3.3.1 (2010-03-16) on smtp1.multiplay.co.uk X-Spam-Level: ** X-Spam-Status: No, score=2.0 required=8.0 tests=AWL,BAYES_00,DOS_OE_TO_MX, FSL_HELO_NON_FQDN_1,HELO_NO_DOMAIN,RDNS_DYNAMIC autolearn=no version=3.3.1 Received: from r2d2 (82-69-141-170.dsl.in-addr.zen.co.uk [82.69.141.170]) by smtp1.multiplay.co.uk (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 8380E20E70886; Mon, 2 Jun 2014 17:12:45 +0000 (UTC) Message-ID: From: "Steven Hartland" To: "Mark Felder" , "Nathan Whitehorn" References: <20140601004242.GA97224@bewilderbeast.blackhelicopters.org> <3D6974D83AE9495E890D9F3CA654FA94@multiplay.co.uk> <538B4CEF.2030801@freebsd.org> <1DB2D63312CE439A96B23EAADFA9436E@multiplay.co.uk> <538B4FD7.4090000@freebsd.org> <538C9207.9040806@freebsd.org> Subject: Re: fdisk(8) vs gpart(8), and gnop Date: Mon, 2 Jun 2014 18:12:50 +0100 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; format=flowed; charset="iso-8859-1"; reply-type=response 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, FreeBSD Hackers , Matthew Ahrens , owner-freebsd-fs@freebsd.org X-BeenThere: freebsd-hackers@freebsd.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.18 Precedence: list List-Id: Technical Discussions relating to FreeBSD List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Mon, 02 Jun 2014 17:12:52 -0000 ----- Original Message ----- From: "Mark Felder" > On 2014-06-02 10:02, Nathan Whitehorn wrote: >> >> My bigger concern is this pool upgrade one -- what if someone puts in >> a 4K disk in the future? > > This is a concern of mine, and I sort of wish we did 4k by default and > forced people to override if they want 512b or something else. That is exactly why we enforce min 4k everywhere here too, but its not for everyone which is why I stuck to 512b default when I added it. I guess the big question is: Is future compatibility vs performance the right way to go for the default as those what want the absolute best performance could always reduce the value prior to creating / added top level vdevs? Regards Steve