From owner-freebsd-fs@FreeBSD.ORG Sun Mar 10 23:59:18 2013 Return-Path: Delivered-To: freebsd-fs@freebsd.org Received: from mx1.freebsd.org (mx1.FreeBSD.org [8.8.178.115]) by hub.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id E40C3D6E for ; Sun, 10 Mar 2013 23:59:18 +0000 (UTC) (envelope-from wblock@wonkity.com) Received: from wonkity.com (wonkity.com [67.158.26.137]) by mx1.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 9B306827 for ; Sun, 10 Mar 2013 23:59:18 +0000 (UTC) Received: from wonkity.com (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by wonkity.com (8.14.6/8.14.6) with ESMTP id r2ANxHxN009350; Sun, 10 Mar 2013 17:59:17 -0600 (MDT) (envelope-from wblock@wonkity.com) Received: from localhost (wblock@localhost) by wonkity.com (8.14.6/8.14.6/Submit) with ESMTP id r2ANxHob009347; Sun, 10 Mar 2013 17:59:17 -0600 (MDT) (envelope-from wblock@wonkity.com) Date: Sun, 10 Mar 2013 17:59:17 -0600 (MDT) From: Warren Block To: Adam Nowacki Subject: Re: Aligning MBR for ZFS boot help In-Reply-To: <513D0E90.5090105@platinum.linux.pl> Message-ID: References: <513C1629.50501@caltel.com> <513D0E90.5090105@platinum.linux.pl> User-Agent: Alpine 2.00 (BSF 1167 2008-08-23) MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII; format=flowed X-Greylist: Sender IP whitelisted, not delayed by milter-greylist-4.2.7 (wonkity.com [127.0.0.1]); Sun, 10 Mar 2013 17:59:17 -0600 (MDT) Cc: freebsd-fs@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: Sun, 10 Mar 2013 23:59:19 -0000 On Sun, 10 Mar 2013, Adam Nowacki wrote: > I don't think zfsboot is aware of BSD disklabel (offsets other than 0 won't > boot). Is there any reason you are using BSD disklabel and not two partition > MBR? MBR slices created on FreeBSD are forced to CHS alignment, pretty much always misaligned for 4K-block hard drives or SSDs. > I also don't think there is any merit in aligning to 1MiB. Most ZFS IOs will > be aligned to sector size (ashift). Unless ZFS pool is created with higher > ashift then the 63 sector offset is as good as any. If the drive has 4K sectors, that will be misaligned, potentially cutting speeds drastically even if ashift is 9.