Return-Path: Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S1754743AbYHJUD3 (ORCPT ); Sun, 10 Aug 2008 16:03:29 -0400 Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org id S1754390AbYHJUC5 (ORCPT ); Sun, 10 Aug 2008 16:02:57 -0400 Received: from gprs189-60.eurotel.cz ([160.218.189.60]:3679 "EHLO spitz.ucw.cz" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-FAIL) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1754333AbYHJUC4 (ORCPT ); Sun, 10 Aug 2008 16:02:56 -0400 Date: Sat, 9 Aug 2008 15:21:44 +0200 From: Pavel Machek To: Matt Domsch Cc: Jim Meyering , "Martin K. Petersen" , James Bottomley , Matthew Wilcox , Ric Wheeler , linux-scsi@vger.kernel.org, linux-ide@vger.kernel.org, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, Jeff Garzik Subject: Re: tools support for non-512 byte sector sizes Message-ID: <20080809132144.GB13169@ucw.cz> References: <488F524F.6020905@redhat.com> <20080729182611.GB24924@parisc-linux.org> <1217356645.6103.48.camel@localhost.localdomain> <20080730135147.GA4513@auslistsprd01.us.dell.com> <87zlnzb8ce.fsf@rho.meyering.net> <20080730172922.GA20191@auslistsprd01.us.dell.com> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <20080730172922.GA20191@auslistsprd01.us.dell.com> User-Agent: Mutt/1.5.9i Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org List-ID: X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org Content-Length: 1474 Lines: 34 Hi! > > - some disk makers have sort of agreed not to do that, and > > expect forever to hide the larger underlying sector size > > behind a virtual 512 (of course, this imposes alignment > > restrictions, but that's a smaller problem) > > yes, this is happening also. > > There will be 3 types of disks eventually: > 1) those that report a 512-byte sector size, and are really a 512-byte > size. This is nearly all disks today. > > 2) those that report a 512-byte sector size, but are really a > 4096-byte size, and the drive does the conversions and > read/modify/write. T10 and T13 are looking to add commands to > expose this different underlying physical sector size so the OS > could be aware of it. This is primarily being driven to mitigate > any problems that may happen with "legacy" OSs that are not aware > of the difference. How is this going to work with journaling? This has nasty property that if you are writing to sector n during powerfail, disk may also kill sectors n-3, n-2 and n-1..... and that's bad right? Pavel -- (english) http://www.livejournal.com/~pavelmachek (cesky, pictures) http://atrey.karlin.mff.cuni.cz/~pavel/picture/horses/blog.html -- 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/