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 misaligned
On Jun 25, 2014, at 7:01 AM, Imran Geriskovan imran.gerisko...@gmail.com
wrote:
On 6/23/14, Martin K. Petersen martin.peter...@oracle.com 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
On 6/23/14, Martin K. Petersen martin.peter...@oracle.com 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,
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 and
Chris == Chris Murphy li...@colorremedies.com 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
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 it operates
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
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
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.
On Sun, 22 Jun 2014 06:44:13 -0700
George Mitchell geo...@chinilu.com 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
On 06/22/2014 07:11 AM, Roman Mamedov wrote:
On Sun, 22 Jun 2014 06:44:13 -0700
George Mitchell geo...@chinilu.com 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
On 06/22/2014 07:11 AM, Roman Mamedov wrote:
On Sun, 22 Jun 2014 06:44:13 -0700
George Mitchell geo...@chinilu.com 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
On Jun 22, 2014, at 1:49 AM, Imran Geriskovan imran.gerisko...@gmail.com
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
On Jun 22, 2014, at 7:44 AM, George Mitchell geo...@chinilu.com 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
On Jun 22, 2014, at 8:46 AM, George Mitchell geo...@chinilu.com 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
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 byte
2014-06-19 2:07 GMT+02:00 Russell Coker russ...@coker.com.au:
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,
2014-06-19 11:11 GMT+02:00 Imran Geriskovan imran.gerisko...@gmail.com:
On 6/19/14, Russell Coker russ...@coker.com.au 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
On Jun 21, 2014, at 1:12 PM, Daniel Cegiełka daniel.cegie...@gmail.com wrote:
2014-06-19 2:07 GMT+02:00 Russell Coker russ...@coker.com.au:
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
On Jun 21, 2014, at 1:19 PM, Daniel Cegiełka daniel.cegie...@gmail.com wrote:
2014-06-19 11:11 GMT+02:00 Imran Geriskovan imran.gerisko...@gmail.com:
On 6/19/14, Russell Coker russ...@coker.com.au wrote:
Grub installs itself and boots from Partitionless Btrfs disk.
It is handy for
On 6/19/14, Russell Coker russ...@coker.com.au 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
On 6/19/14, Russell Coker russ...@coker.com.au 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
On 2014-06-18 16:10, Chris Murphy wrote:
On Jun 18, 2014, at 1:29 PM, Daniel Cegiełka daniel.cegie...@gmail.com
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
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
On Jun 18, 2014, at 1:29 PM, Daniel Cegiełka daniel.cegie...@gmail.com 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
On 6/18/14, Daniel Cegiełka daniel.cegie...@gmail.com 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
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
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
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
29 matches
Mail list logo
