On Sat, Jun 09, 2018 at 07:31:54PM +, Eric Wheeler wrote:
> I understand the choice. What I am asking is this: would it be safe to
> let others make their own choice about block size provided they are warned
> about the metadata-chunk-size/pool-size limit tradeoff?
>
> If it is safe, can
Dne 9.6.2018 v 21:31 Eric Wheeler napsal(a):
On Fri, 18 May 2018, Zdenek Kabelac wrote:
Dne 18.5.2018 v 01:36 Eric Wheeler napsal(a):
Hello all,
Is there a technical reason that DATA_DEV_BLOCK_SIZE_MIN_SECTORS is
limited to 64k?
I realize that the metadata limits the maximum mappable pool
On Fri, 18 May 2018, Zdenek Kabelac wrote:
> Dne 18.5.2018 v 01:36 Eric Wheeler napsal(a):
> > Hello all,
> >
> > Is there a technical reason that DATA_DEV_BLOCK_SIZE_MIN_SECTORS is
> > limited to 64k?
> >
> > I realize that the metadata limits the maximum mappable pool size, so it
> > needs to
Dne 18.5.2018 v 01:36 Eric Wheeler napsal(a):
Hello all,
Is there a technical reason that DATA_DEV_BLOCK_SIZE_MIN_SECTORS is
limited to 64k?
I realize that the metadata limits the maximum mappable pool size, so it
needs to be bigger for big pools---but it is also the minimum COW size.
Looking
Hello all,
Is there a technical reason that DATA_DEV_BLOCK_SIZE_MIN_SECTORS is
limited to 64k?
I realize that the metadata limits the maximum mappable pool size, so it
needs to be bigger for big pools---but it is also the minimum COW size.
Looking at the code this is enforced in
