RE: block size in XFS = hard coded constant?

RE: block size in XFS = hard coded constant?

[Olaf Frączyk]

On Mon, 2002-09-30 at 10:55, L A Walsh wrote:
> Right -- I know it isn't the filesystem block size.
> 
> In this day and age, it seems anachronistic.  Given the 10% higher block
> density, not only would it yield higher capacities, but should yield higher
> transfer rates, no?
> 
> I know it isn't a simple constant switch -- but I wouldn't want to switch
> constants since not all disks should be constrained to the same block size.
> 
> Do other file systems have the same limitation?  Are there any problems in the
> linux-kernel with non-512 byte blocks?
Hi, 

DVD-RAM (2048 bytes block size) works well in linux.
I use ext2 for DVD-RAM.

Regards,

Olaf Fraczyk

Re: block size in XFS = hard coded constant?

[Nathan Scott]

Hello,

On Mon, Sep 30, 2002 at 01:55:38AM -0700, L A Walsh wrote:
> Right -- I know it isn't the filesystem block size.
> 
> In this day and age, it seems anachronistic.  Given the 10% higher block
> density, not only would it yield higher capacities, but should yield higher
> transfer rates, no?
> 
> I know it isn't a simple constant switch -- but I wouldn't want to switch
> constants since not all disks should be constrained to the same block size.
> 

I have some code which implements an initial version of >512 byte sector
sizes for the XFS data device - I was just chatting about this with Steve
today.  Initial benchmarking results seem to suggest that it does indeed
perform slightly better.  Support for this will likely be making its way
into XFS in the future, but not right away.

cheers.

-- 
Nathan