Return-Path: Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id ; Mon, 30 Sep 2002 08:00:29 -0400 Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org id ; Mon, 30 Sep 2002 08:00:29 -0400 Received: from goliath.sylaba.poznan.pl ([195.216.104.3]:11997 "EHLO goliath.sylaba.poznan.pl") by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id ; Mon, 30 Sep 2002 08:00:28 -0400 Subject: RE: block size in XFS = hard coded constant? From: Olaf =?iso-8859-2?Q?Fr=B1czyk?= To: L A Walsh Cc: Stephen Lord , Linux-Xfs , Linux-Kernel , Linux-Fsdevel In-Reply-To: References: Content-Type: text/plain Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Mailer: Ximian Evolution 1.0.3 (1.0.3-4) Date: 30 Sep 2002 14:07:57 +0200 Message-Id: <1033387679.3719.5.camel@venus> Mime-Version: 1.0 Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org Content-Length: 915 Lines: 29 On Mon, 2002-09-30 at 10:55, L A Walsh wrote: > Right -- I know it isn't the filesystem block size. > > In this day and age, it seems anachronistic. Given the 10% higher block > density, not only would it yield higher capacities, but should yield higher > transfer rates, no? > > I know it isn't a simple constant switch -- but I wouldn't want to switch > constants since not all disks should be constrained to the same block size. > > Do other file systems have the same limitation? Are there any problems in the > linux-kernel with non-512 byte blocks? Hi, DVD-RAM (2048 bytes block size) works well in linux. I use ext2 for DVD-RAM. Regards, Olaf Fraczyk - To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in the body of a message to majordomo@vger.kernel.org More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/