In message <469FFFC8-514B-41B9-AEEC-E4B7AB6CB886_at_exscape.org>, Thomas Backman w rites: >On Dec 25, 2009, at 11:58 AM, Alexander Motin wrote: >They don't expose this to the OS, though (not by default, anyway), but = >chop it up into 8 512-byte sectors for compatibility reasons. >Just thought I'd point that out - I'm not even sure if you can get them = >to *not* do the compatibility thing and expose 4k-sized sectors. While that is true, it is worth noting that the same Windows-compat idioty is what doomed the world to RAID5 instead of RAID3. The recent article in Queue Magazine shows how deeply ingrained the 512byte mindset has become: The author goes to great lengths to praise RAID6 and higher for their ability to have multiple bit ECC without ever recognizing (author not knowing ?) that RAID3 has had this ability from day one. UFS runs incredibly well on 4k blocks, and we should exploit that to the fullest extent, and if we really want to jerk chains, we should push RAID3 in 4+2 and 8+3 configs aggressively, it performs great, both under read and write, and Windows cannot do it. Poul-Henning PS: Merry X-mas everybody! -- Poul-Henning Kamp | UNIX since Zilog Zeus 3.20 phk_at_FreeBSD.ORG | TCP/IP since RFC 956 FreeBSD committer | BSD since 4.3-tahoe Never attribute to malice what can adequately be explained by incompetence.Received on Fri Dec 25 2009 - 10:44:44 UTC
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.4.0 : Wed May 19 2021 - 11:39:59 UTC