Date: Wed, 9 Sep 2020 19:06:31 +0200 From: Niclas Zeising <zeising+freebsd@daemonic.se> To: Ryan Moeller <freqlabs@FreeBSD.org>, freebsd-current@freebsd.org Subject: Re: vfs.zfs.min_auto_ashift and OpenZFS Message-ID: <2d393cf6-af92-cd64-aac8-a656b0c95299@daemonic.se> In-Reply-To: <f00c007f-f499-0da2-0b54-465d147884c3@FreeBSD.org> References: <9592fb23-ef97-f0a2-5968-f10ae404e761@gmail.com> <CAPrugNpXXPjdoLsszZwwkpooDrt44gfguJfvK4qQWEUSD7%2BhZg@mail.gmail.com> <37b914c8-6fb6-7c1c-9497-ae1402b8dd40@daemonic.se> <f00c007f-f499-0da2-0b54-465d147884c3@FreeBSD.org>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
On 2020-09-09 17:55, Ryan Moeller wrote: > > On 9/8/20 4:31 PM, Niclas Zeising wrote: >> On 2020-05-02 02:20, Matthew Macy wrote: >>> OpenZFS doesn't have the same ashift optimization logic that FreeBSD >>> has. It's something that needs to be resolved before the code can be >>> integrated downstream. >> >> So currently all pools created with OpenZFS will use 512 bit >> alignment, at least if the underlying storage device uses 512bit >> sectors (which most drives tend to do)? >> >> If this is the case, it feels like a pessimisation. >> >> Regards > > > The vdev ashift optimizations from FreeBSD were put in OpenZFS before > the import into base. That sysctl does work now. > Thank you for the clarification! Regards -- Niclas
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?2d393cf6-af92-cd64-aac8-a656b0c95299>