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 1NewN3-0005fM-Hf for garchives@archives.gentoo.org; Tue, 09 Feb 2010 20:07:41 +0000 Received: from pigeon.gentoo.org (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by pigeon.gentoo.org (Postfix) with SMTP id 27960E1803 for ; Tue, 9 Feb 2010 20:07:41 +0000 (UTC) Received: from smtpq3.gn.mail.iss.as9143.net (smtpq3.gn.mail.iss.as9143.net [212.54.34.166]) by pigeon.gentoo.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 4113DE1721 for ; Tue, 9 Feb 2010 19:29:39 +0000 (UTC) Received: from [212.54.34.134] (helo=smtp3.gn.mail.iss.as9143.net) by smtpq3.gn.mail.iss.as9143.net with esmtp (Exim 4.69) (envelope-from ) id 1NevmE-0005DO-CB for gentoo-user@lists.gentoo.org; Tue, 09 Feb 2010 20:29:38 +0100 Received: from 5353258a.cable.casema.nl ([83.83.37.138] helo=data.hosts.antarean.org) by smtp3.gn.mail.iss.as9143.net with esmtp (Exim 4.69) (envelope-from ) id 1NevmD-0006EW-HF for gentoo-user@lists.gentoo.org; Tue, 09 Feb 2010 20:29:37 +0100 Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by data.hosts.antarean.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id DF9AD29637 for ; Tue, 9 Feb 2010 20:29:36 +0100 (CET) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at antarean.org Received: from data.hosts.antarean.org ([127.0.0.1]) by localhost (data.hosts.antarean.org [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id v9tv7YIL0xRT for ; Tue, 9 Feb 2010 20:29:36 +0100 (CET) Received: from eve.localnet (eve.hosts.antarean.org [10.1.5.100]) (using TLSv1 with cipher DHE-RSA-AES256-SHA (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by data.hosts.antarean.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id C2C1C27888 for ; Tue, 9 Feb 2010 20:29:36 +0100 (CET) From: "J. Roeleveld" To: gentoo-user@lists.gentoo.org Subject: Re: [gentoo-user] 1-Terabyte drives - 4K sector sizes? -> bar performance so far Date: Tue, 9 Feb 2010 20:29:36 +0100 User-Agent: KMail/1.12.3 (Linux/2.6.30-gentoo-r5; KDE/4.3.3; x86_64; ; ) References: <5bdc1c8b1002070827i14f59047k39a695900ebe9889@mail.gmail.com> <9C06FE85-D96B-4CF3-9E43-57DA1EB5B32B@stellar.eclipse.co.uk> <5bdc1c8b1002091025i57f6a17fr99dda6e0cb246a0f@mail.gmail.com> In-Reply-To: <5bdc1c8b1002091025i57f6a17fr99dda6e0cb246a0f@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: <201002092029.36344.joost@antarean.org> X-ZiggoSMTP-MailScanner-Information: Please contact the ISP for more information X-ZiggoSMTP-MailScanner-ID: 1NevmD-0006EW-HF X-ZiggoSMTP-MailScanner: Found to be clean X-ZiggoSMTP-MailScanner-SpamCheck: geen spam, SpamAssassin (niet cached, score=-2.599, vereist 5, autolearn=not spam, BAYES_00 -2.60) X-ZiggoSMTP-MailScanner-From: joost@antarean.org X-Spam-Status: No X-Archives-Salt: abe2cc62-6fca-4192-aef1-6f382b95ddf8 X-Archives-Hash: 27a2d5360d00dce04983339949f6b146 On Tuesday 09 February 2010 19:25:00 Mark Knecht wrote: > On Tue, Feb 9, 2010 at 9:38 AM, Stroller > wrote: > > > IMO this is a fdisk "bug". A feature should be added so that it tries to > > align optimally in most circumstances. RAID controllers should not be > > trying to do anything clever to accommodate potential misalignment unless > > it is really cheap to do so. > > > > Stroller. > > We think alike. I personally wouldn't call it a bug because drives > with 4K physical sectors are very new, but adding a feature to align > things better is dead on the right thing to do. It's silly to expect > every Linux user installing binary distros to have to learn this stuff > to get good performance. > > - Mark > I actually agree, although I think the 'best' solution (untill someone comes up with an even better one, that is :) ) would be for the drive to actually be able to inform the OS (via S.M.A.R.T.?) that it has 4KB sectors. If then fdisk-programs and RAID-cards (ok, new firmware) then uses this to come to sensible settings, that would then work. If these RAID-cards then also pass on the correct settings for the raid-array for optimal performance (stripe-size => sector-size?) using the same method, then everyone would end up with better performance. Now, if anyone has any idea on how to get this idea implemented by the hardware vendors, then I'm quite certain the different tools can be modified to take this information into account? And Mark, it's not just people installing binary distros, I think it's generally people who don't fully understand the way harddrives work on a physical level. I consider myself lucky to have worked with older computers where this information was actually necessary to even get the BIOS to recognize the harddrive. -- Joost