Skip site navigation (1)Skip section navigation (2) 
Date:      Mon, 22 Apr 2024 11:20:38 -0400
From:      mike tancsa <mike@sentex.net>
To:        =?UTF-8?Q?Dag-Erling_Sm=C3=B8rgrav?= <des@FreeBSD.org>
Cc:        FreeBSD-STABLE Mailing List <freebsd-stable@freebsd.org>
Subject:   Re: block size: 512B configured, 4096B native all of a sudden
Message-ID:  <d3536b16-fbdb-4a9f-a85c-47b1cc7213db@sentex.net>
In-Reply-To: <86bk618lyh.fsf@ltc.des.dev>
References:  <9a593ca1-4975-438a-afec-d8dd5199dbcf@sentex.net> <86bk618lyh.fsf@ltc.des.dev>
index | next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail 

[-- Attachment #1 --]
On 4/22/2024 11:18 AM, Dag-Erling Smørgrav wrote:
> mike tancsa<mike@sentex.net>  writes:
>> I upgraded a RELENG_13 box from last March to one today to bring in
>> some of the zfs bug fixes.  But now I have this warning on a pool that
>> was not there before.  But the special devices (two 2TB samsungs) are
>> 512 according to smartctl?  Any idea why this warning popped up on the
>> pool all of a sudden?  the disks and pool have been the same for a
>> year or so.
> what does `sysctl vfs.zfs.vdev.min_auto_ashift` say?
  sysctl vfs.zfs.vdev.min_auto_ashift
vfs.zfs.vdev.min_auto_ashift: 9
>> Sector Size:      512 bytes logical/physical
> The SSD is doing read-copy-update behind the scenes to support a
> 512-byte sector size for compatibility reasons, the real sector size is
> unlikely to be less than 4 kB and may actually be significantly larger.

Where what would be picking up the "true" size and why the change from a 
March 4th system to one today ?

     ---Mike

[-- Attachment #2 --]
<!DOCTYPE html>
<html>
  <head>
    <meta http-equiv="Content-Type" content="text/html; charset=UTF-8">
  </head>
  <body>
    <div class="moz-cite-prefix">On 4/22/2024 11:18 AM, Dag-Erling
      Smørgrav wrote:<br>
    </div>
    <blockquote type="cite" cite="mid:86bk618lyh.fsf@ltc.des.dev">
      <pre class="moz-quote-pre" wrap="">mike tancsa <a class="moz-txt-link-rfc2396E" href="mailto:mike@sentex.net">&lt;mike@sentex.net&gt;</a> writes:
</pre>
      <blockquote type="cite">
        <pre class="moz-quote-pre" wrap="">I upgraded a RELENG_13 box from last March to one today to bring in
some of the zfs bug fixes.  But now I have this warning on a pool that
was not there before.  But the special devices (two 2TB samsungs) are
512 according to smartctl?  Any idea why this warning popped up on the
pool all of a sudden?  the disks and pool have been the same for a
year or so.
</pre>
      </blockquote>
      <pre class="moz-quote-pre" wrap="">
what does `sysctl vfs.zfs.vdev.min_auto_ashift` say?
</pre>
    </blockquote>
     sysctl vfs.zfs.vdev.min_auto_ashift<br>
    vfs.zfs.vdev.min_auto_ashift: 9<br>
    <blockquote type="cite" cite="mid:86bk618lyh.fsf@ltc.des.dev">
      <pre class="moz-quote-pre" wrap="">
</pre>
      <blockquote type="cite">
        <pre class="moz-quote-pre" wrap="">Sector Size:      512 bytes logical/physical
</pre>
      </blockquote>
      <pre class="moz-quote-pre" wrap="">
The SSD is doing read-copy-update behind the scenes to support a
512-byte sector size for compatibility reasons, the real sector size is
unlikely to be less than 4 kB and may actually be significantly larger.
</pre>
    </blockquote>
    <p>Where what would be picking up the "true" size and why the change
      from a March 4th system to one today ?</p>
    <p>    ---Mike<br>
    </p>
    <span style="white-space: pre-wrap">
</span>
  </body>
</html>
home | help

Want to link to this message? Use this
URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?d3536b16-fbdb-4a9f-a85c-47b1cc7213db>