Date: Thu, 11 Sep 2014 09:24:41 +0300 From: Andriy Gapon <avg@FreeBSD.org> To: Steven Hartland <killing@multiplay.co.uk>, Aristedes Maniatis <ari@ish.com.au>, freebsd-stable <freebsd-stable@FreeBSD.org> Subject: Re: getting to 4K disk blocks in ZFS Message-ID: <54114029.3060507@FreeBSD.org> In-Reply-To: <A0A549F7A4094F519A3660697AB4983F@multiplay.co.uk> References: <540FF3C4.6010305@ish.com.au> <54100258.2000505@freebsd.org> <5410F0B4.9040808@ish.com.au> <A0A549F7A4094F519A3660697AB4983F@multiplay.co.uk>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
On 11/09/2014 04:22, Steven Hartland wrote: > > ----- Original Message ----- From: "Aristedes Maniatis" <ari@ish.com.au> >> Should the FreeBSD project change this minimum in the next release? >> There seems to be no downside and a huge amount of pain for people >> who stumble along with the defaults not knowing what a mess they are >> creating to solve later. > > The downside is wasted space which can be significant and hence when > I last suggested just this it was unfortunately rejected. > > We still maintain a local patch to our source tree which does just > this because, as you've mentioned, we don't want the pain so its > easier to just run everything as 4k. Another downside is 1/4th of uberblocks, 32 vs 128. Also, automatic sector size detection works great for me and I've never had a need to manually tweak ashift. -- Andriy Gapon
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?54114029.3060507>