From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id ; Mon, 30 Sep 2002 17:21:23 -0400 Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org id ; Mon, 30 Sep 2002 17:21:23 -0400 Received: from zok.SGI.COM ([204.94.215.101]:51348 "EHLO zok.sgi.com") by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id ; Mon, 30 Sep 2002 17:21:22 -0400 Date: Tue, 1 Oct 2002 07:26:27 +1000 From: Nathan Scott To: L A Walsh Cc: Linux-Xfs , Linux-Kernel , Linux-Fsdevel Subject: Re: block size in XFS = hard coded constant? Message-ID: <20021001072627.A218954@wobbly.melbourne.sgi.com> References: <1033336748.1088.4.camel@laptop.americas.sgi.com> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline User-Agent: Mutt/1.2.5i In-Reply-To: ; from law@tlinx.org on Mon, Sep 30, 2002 at 01:55:38AM -0700 Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org 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