From: Jens Axboe Subject: Re: I/O topology fixes for big physical block size Date: Tue, 28 Sep 2010 13:30:34 +0900 Message-ID: <4CA16F6A.1090904@fusionio.com> References: <1285605664-27027-1-git-send-email-martin.petersen@oracle.com> <4CA0CC38.5010804@fusionio.com> <4CA118FF.1080100@fusionio.com> <20100927231551.GA15653@redhat.com> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="ISO-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Cc: "Martin K. Petersen" , "James.Bottomley@hansenpartnership.com" , "linux-scsi@vger.kernel.org" , "linux-ext4@vger.kernel.org" To: Mike Snitzer Return-path: In-Reply-To: <20100927231551.GA15653@redhat.com> Sender: linux-scsi-owner@vger.kernel.org List-Id: linux-ext4.vger.kernel.org On 2010-09-28 08:15, Mike Snitzer wrote: > On Mon, Sep 27 2010 at 6:36pm -0400, > Martin K. Petersen wrote: > >>>>>>> "Jens" == Jens Axboe writes: >> Jens> Does mkfs do the right thing? >> >> Depends on which mkfs it is. Mike has tested things and can chip in >> here... > > I haven't test all mkfs.* but... > > mkfs.xfs just works with 1M physical_block_size. > > mkfs.ext4 won't by default but -F "fixes" that: > > # mkfs.ext4 -b 4096 -F /dev/mapper/20017380023360006 > mke2fs 1.41.12 (17-May-2010) > Warning: specified blocksize 4096 is less than device physical sectorsize 1048576, forced to continue OK, so that's not exactly doing the right thing, but at least you can work around it with a parameter. So I'd say that is good enough. > I'll check fdisk and parted tomorrow (I know lvm2 doesn't look at > physical_block_size). Thanks! -- Jens Axboe