From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Received: from pigeon.gentoo.org ([208.92.234.80] helo=lists.gentoo.org) by finch.gentoo.org with esmtp (Exim 4.60) (envelope-from ) id 1NeDM6-0005B4-2I for garchives@archives.gentoo.org; Sun, 07 Feb 2010 20:03:43 +0000 Received: from pigeon.gentoo.org (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by pigeon.gentoo.org (Postfix) with SMTP id 603C3E0C18 for ; Sun, 7 Feb 2010 20:03:41 +0000 (UTC) Received: from mail-fx0-f214.google.com (mail-fx0-f214.google.com [209.85.220.214]) by pigeon.gentoo.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id BE1C0E0C1C for ; Sun, 7 Feb 2010 19:16:39 +0000 (UTC) Received: by fxm6 with SMTP id 6so1896905fxm.38 for ; Sun, 07 Feb 2010 11:16:39 -0800 (PST) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=googlemail.com; s=gamma; h=domainkey-signature:received:received:from:to:subject:date :user-agent:references:in-reply-to:mime-version:content-type :content-transfer-encoding:message-id; bh=nTYabnRA1iXC3SQxTol2nRVUVA7NE/ytKJLbOT/jzC0=; b=caPiNGBUft6egK24R4pRG6vOD02Sdffe4tO4UZp7H5vB0GNgb5cObA4pwycaKD6UQf kEZ3SEeReK7pc153Sog1OkkVjdvPM/ArLzHpj6nndVGZFh8sq2Pfd28GqHyB+o/Se1Y9 a0mPuGNzyaThSzl5t3OIKzefFU35W8Aq0920s= DomainKey-Signature: a=rsa-sha1; c=nofws; d=googlemail.com; s=gamma; h=from:to:subject:date:user-agent:references:in-reply-to:mime-version :content-type:content-transfer-encoding:message-id; b=BJ7OaFeYF0IKBP8bTy+sQnAfU/VmIVSzhchfffzPlaB50KgqAgG8788RuBWHkCNCgZ E4f1UKFvHbgAtgGlFtYuAlwlu/8CET1mvs0QM5GgofVQ/vMr+J7RIK6G0o9u/gN6NGvj KhaOFs10ckERoXtdi/gT4Fans3+9ud6zpArPA= Received: by 10.102.174.11 with SMTP id w11mr3792775mue.17.1265570199126; Sun, 07 Feb 2010 11:16:39 -0800 (PST) Received: from energy.localnet (ip-80-226-1-7.vodafone-net.de [80.226.1.7]) by mx.google.com with ESMTPS id w5sm17532661mue.52.2010.02.07.11.16.38 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=RC4-MD5); Sun, 07 Feb 2010 11:16:38 -0800 (PST) From: Volker Armin Hemmann To: gentoo-user@lists.gentoo.org Subject: Re: [gentoo-user] 1-Terabyte drives - 4K sector sizes? -> bar performance so far Date: Sun, 7 Feb 2010 20:16:34 +0100 User-Agent: KMail/1.13.0 (Linux/2.6.31.12r4; KDE/4.3.95; x86_64; ; ) References: <5bdc1c8b1002070827i14f59047k39a695900ebe9889@mail.gmail.com> <201002072030.43425.b3nder@yandex.ru> <5bdc1c8b1002071038q7f9d379fm4b3f4fffecfaba17@mail.gmail.com> In-Reply-To: <5bdc1c8b1002071038q7f9d379fm4b3f4fffecfaba17@mail.gmail.com> Precedence: bulk List-Post: List-Help: List-Unsubscribe: List-Subscribe: List-Id: Gentoo Linux mail X-BeenThere: gentoo-user@lists.gentoo.org Reply-to: gentoo-user@lists.gentoo.org MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: Text/Plain; charset="utf-8" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Message-Id: <201002072016.35000.volkerarmin@googlemail.com> X-Archives-Salt: 6f40bab1-d4bb-4500-9eec-e0d5a2882fd7 X-Archives-Hash: a764c9b5ba9c8e4917620c8639a7854a On Sonntag 07 Februar 2010, Mark Knecht wrote: > On Sun, Feb 7, 2010 at 9:30 AM, Alexander wrote: > > On Sunday 07 February 2010 19:27:46 Mark Knecht wrote: > >> Every time there is an apparent delay I just see the hard drive > >> light turned on solid. That said as far as I know if I wait for things > >> to complete the data is there but I haven't tested it extensively. > >> > >> Is this a bad drive or am I somehow using it incorrectly? > > > > Is there any related info in dmesg? > > No, nothing in dmesg at all. > > Here are two tests this morning. The first is to the 1T drive, the > second is to a 120GB drive I'm currently using as a system drive until > I work this out: > > gandalf TestMount # time tar xjf /mnt/TestMount/portage-latest.tar.bz2 > -C /mnt/TestMount/usr > > real 8m13.077s > user 0m8.184s > sys 0m2.561s > gandalf TestMount # > > > mark@gandalf ~ $ time tar xjf /mnt/TestMount/portage-latest.tar.bz2 -C > /home/mark/Test_usr/ > > real 0m39.213s > user 0m8.243s > sys 0m2.135s > mark@gandalf ~ $ > > 8 minutes vs 39 seconds! > > The amount of data written appears to be the same: > > gandalf ~ # du -shc /mnt/TestMount/usr/ > 583M /mnt/TestMount/usr/ > 583M total > gandalf ~ # > > > mark@gandalf ~ $ du -shc /home/mark/Test_usr/ > 583M /home/mark/Test_usr/ > 583M total > mark@gandalf ~ $ > > > I did some reading at the WD site and it seems this drive does use the > 4K sector size. The way it's done is the addressing on cable is still > 512 byte 'user sectors', but they are packed into 4K physical sectors > and internal hardware does the mapping. > > I suspect the performance issue is figuring out how to get the file > system to keep things on 4K boundaries. I assume that's what the 4K > block size is for when building the file system but I need to go find > out more about that. I did not select it specifically. Maybe I need > to. > > Thanks, > Mark no. 4k block size is the default for linux filesystems. But you might have 'misaligned' the partitions. There is a lot of text to read about 'eraseblocks' on ssds and how important it is to align the partitions. You might want to read up on that to learn how to align partitions.