On 6/26/14, Chris Murphy wrote:
> On Jun 25, 2014, at 7:01 AM, Imran Geriskovan
>> There are SSDs with 4K, 8K block/page sizes and
>> 512K, 1M, 1.5M Erase block sizes.
>> Partitions should be aligned with Erase blocks.
> That sounds plausible, but the FTL in the consumer SSD's most all of us are
On Jun 25, 2014, at 7:01 AM, Imran Geriskovan
wrote:
> On 6/23/14, Martin K. Petersen wrote:
>> Anyway. The short answer is that Linux will pretty much always do I/O in
>> multiples of the system page size regardless of the logical block size
>> of the underlying device. There are a few except
On 6/25/14, Duncan <1i5t5.dun...@cox.net> wrote:
> Imran Geriskovan posted on Wed, 25 Jun 2014 15:01:49 +0200 as excerpted:
>> Note that gdisk gives default 8 sector alignment value for AF disks.
>> That is 'sector' meant by gdisk is 'Logical Sector'!
>> Sufficiently determined user may create misa
Imran Geriskovan posted on Wed, 25 Jun 2014 15:01:49 +0200 as excerpted:
> Note that gdisk gives default 8 sector alignment value for AF disks.
> That is 'sector' meant by gdisk is 'Logical Sector'!
> Sufficiently determined user may create misaligned partitions by playing
> with alignment value a
On 6/23/14, Martin K. Petersen wrote:
> Anyway. The short answer is that Linux will pretty much always do I/O in
> multiples of the system page size regardless of the logical block size
> of the underlying device. There are a few exceptions to this such as
> direct I/O, legacy filesystems using bu
Martin K. Petersen posted on Mon, 23 Jun 2014 08:24:04 -0400 as excerpted:
> Anyway. The short answer is that Linux will pretty much always do I/O in
> multiples of the system page size regardless of the logical block size
> of the underlying device. There are a few exceptions to this such as
> di
> "Duncan" == Duncan <1i5t5.dun...@cox.net> writes:
Duncan> Tho as you point out elsewhere, levels under the filesystem
Duncan> layer may split the btrfs 4096 byte block size into 512 byte
Duncan> logical sector sizes if appropriate, but that has nothing to do
Duncan> with btrfs except that i
> "Chris" == Chris Murphy writes:
Chris> Does anyone know if blktrace will intercept the actual SCSI
Chris> commands sent to the drive? Or is there a better utility to use
Chris> for this? When I use it unfiltered, I'm not seeing SCSI write
Chris> commands at all.
# echo scsi:scsi_dispatch_c
Chris Murphy posted on Sun, 22 Jun 2014 12:47:10 -0600 as excerpted:
>> As far as I know, btrfs defaults to 4K UNLESS you specify 512B
>
> I'm not sure what this means. The Btrfs sector size minimum is 4096
> bytes.
> I can use -s to make it bigger, but not less than 4096 on 512/512 or
> 512/4096
On Jun 22, 2014, at 8:46 AM, George Mitchell wrote:
>
> http://johannes-bauer.com/linux/wdc/?menuid=3
OK well a post full of hyperbole from an misogynistic jackass doesn't really
convince me there's a real problem here. Telling Linux/fdisk/parted that a 4096
byte physical sector drive is 512
On Jun 22, 2014, at 7:44 AM, George Mitchell wrote:
> This is a problem related to Western Digital drives. They lie in order to be
> compatible with older versions of Windows. Seagate AF drives report 4K, not
> 512B. Western Digital took this path in order to make the drives work with
> old
On Jun 22, 2014, at 1:49 AM, Imran Geriskovan
wrote:
>> The 64KB Btrfs bootloader pad is 8 sector aligned, so for 512e AF disks
>> there's no problem formatting the whole drive. The alignment problem
>> actually happens when partitioning it, using old partition tools that don't
>> align on 8 se
On 06/22/2014 07:11 AM, Roman Mamedov wrote:
On Sun, 22 Jun 2014 06:44:13 -0700
George Mitchell wrote:
On 06/22/2014 12:49 AM, Imran Geriskovan wrote:
The 64KB Btrfs bootloader pad is 8 sector aligned, so for 512e AF disks
there's no problem formatting the whole drive. The alignment problem
a
On 06/22/2014 07:11 AM, Roman Mamedov wrote:
On Sun, 22 Jun 2014 06:44:13 -0700
George Mitchell wrote:
On 06/22/2014 12:49 AM, Imran Geriskovan wrote:
The 64KB Btrfs bootloader pad is 8 sector aligned, so for 512e AF disks
there's no problem formatting the whole drive. The alignment problem
a
On Sun, 22 Jun 2014 06:44:13 -0700
George Mitchell wrote:
> On 06/22/2014 12:49 AM, Imran Geriskovan wrote:
> >> The 64KB Btrfs bootloader pad is 8 sector aligned, so for 512e AF disks
> >> there's no problem formatting the whole drive. The alignment problem
> >> actually happens when partitionin
On 06/22/2014 12:49 AM, Imran Geriskovan wrote:
The 64KB Btrfs bootloader pad is 8 sector aligned, so for 512e AF disks
there's no problem formatting the whole drive. The alignment problem
actually happens when partitioning it, using old partition tools that don't
align on 8 sector boundaries. Th
> The 64KB Btrfs bootloader pad is 8 sector aligned, so for 512e AF disks
> there's no problem formatting the whole drive. The alignment problem
> actually happens when partitioning it, using old partition tools that don't
> align on 8 sector boundaries. There are some such tools still floating
> a
On Jun 21, 2014, at 1:19 PM, Daniel Cegiełka wrote:
> 2014-06-19 11:11 GMT+02:00 Imran Geriskovan :
>> On 6/19/14, Russell Coker wrote:
>
>>
>> Grub installs itself and boots from Partitionless Btrfs disk.
>> It is handy for straight forward installations.
>>
>> However, IF you need boot par
On Jun 21, 2014, at 1:12 PM, Daniel Cegiełka wrote:
> 2014-06-19 2:07 GMT+02:00 Russell Coker :
>
>> For boot disks I use the traditional partitioning system. So far I don't run
>> any systems that have a boot disk larger than 2TB so I haven't needed to use
>> GPT.
>>
>> I have a BTRFS RAID-1
2014-06-19 11:11 GMT+02:00 Imran Geriskovan :
> On 6/19/14, Russell Coker wrote:
>
> Grub installs itself and boots from Partitionless Btrfs disk.
> It is handy for straight forward installations.
>
> However, IF you need boot partition (ie. initramfs and kernel to boot
> from encrypted root) its
2014-06-19 2:07 GMT+02:00 Russell Coker :
> For boot disks I use the traditional partitioning system. So far I don't run
> any systems that have a boot disk larger than 2TB so I haven't needed to use
> GPT.
>
> I have a BTRFS RAID-1 on 2*3TB disks which have no partition tables, when the
> filesy
On 2014-06-18 16:10, Chris Murphy wrote:
>
> On Jun 18, 2014, at 1:29 PM, Daniel Cegiełka
> wrote:
>
>> Hi,
>> I created btrfs directly to disk using such a scheme (no partitions):
>>
>> dd if=/dev/zero of=/dev/sda bs=4096
>> mkfs.btrfs -L dev_sda /dev/sda
>> mount /dev/sda /mnt
>>
>> cd /mnt
>
On 6/19/14, Russell Coker wrote:
> On Wed, 18 Jun 2014 21:29:39 Daniel Cegiełka wrote:
>> Everything works fine. Is such a solution is recommended? In my
>> opinion, the creation of the partitions seems to be completely
>> unnecessary if you can use btrfs.
> If you don't need to have a boot loade
On 6/19/14, Russell Coker wrote:
> On Wed, 18 Jun 2014 21:29:39 Daniel Cegiełka wrote:
>> Everything works fine. Is such a solution is recommended? In my
>> opinion, the creation of the partitions seems to be completely
>> unnecessary if you can use btrfs.
> If you don't need to have a boot loade
On Wed, 18 Jun 2014 18:01:44 George Mitchell wrote:
> A lot of good comments on this topic already. I would just add that on
> large (TB) drives, not partitioning can result in some pretty slow mount
> and umount times (even applies to mounting subvolumes).
If you mount a subvol then the kernel
A lot of good comments on this topic already. I would just add that on
large (TB) drives, not partitioning can result in some pretty slow mount
and umount times (even applies to mounting subvolumes). That is one of
the frustrating side effects I have noticed with a non-partitioned 4TB
drive o
On Wed, 18 Jun 2014 21:29:39 Daniel Cegiełka wrote:
> Everything works fine. Is such a solution is recommended? In my
> opinion, the creation of the partitions seems to be completely
> unnecessary if you can use btrfs.
For boot disks I use the traditional partitioning system. So far I don't run
On 6/18/14, Daniel Cegiełka wrote:
> I created btrfs directly to disk using such a scheme (no partitions):
> cd /mnt
> btrfs subvolume create __active
> btrfs subvolume create __active/rootvol
> Everything works fine. Is such a solution is recommended? In my
> opinion, the creation of the partitio
On Jun 18, 2014, at 1:29 PM, Daniel Cegiełka wrote:
> Hi,
> I created btrfs directly to disk using such a scheme (no partitions):
>
> dd if=/dev/zero of=/dev/sda bs=4096
> mkfs.btrfs -L dev_sda /dev/sda
> mount /dev/sda /mnt
>
> cd /mnt
> btrfs subvolume create __active
> btrfs subvolume creat
Hi,
I created btrfs directly to disk using such a scheme (no partitions):
dd if=/dev/zero of=/dev/sda bs=4096
mkfs.btrfs -L dev_sda /dev/sda
mount /dev/sda /mnt
cd /mnt
btrfs subvolume create __active
btrfs subvolume create __active/rootvol
btrfs subvolume create __active/usr
btrfs subvolume crea
30 matches
Mail list logo
