Skip site navigation (1)Skip section navigation (2)
Date:      Mon, 25 Nov 2013 18:43:26 -0700 (MST)
From:      Warren Block <wblock@wonkity.com>
To:        Eric Browning <ericbrowning@skaggscatholiccenter.org>
Cc:        FreeBSD FS <freebsd-fs@freebsd.org>
Subject:   Re: Performance difference between UFS and ZFS with NFS
Message-ID:  <alpine.BSF.2.00.1311251840370.49513@wonkity.com>
In-Reply-To: <CAM=5oeDR3rSmxpffJnTFSkXMxRY0a0gz-NnogoQLhc4ih06gPw@mail.gmail.com>
References:  <2103733116.16923158.1384866769683.JavaMail.root@uoguelph.ca> <9F76D61C-EFEB-44B3-9717-D0795789832D@gmail.com> <CAM=5oeAF2gfccrGNdbApUDpqRae4OQjZ7oaZZi4y1j%2BsF6PsTw@mail.gmail.com> <5969250F-0987-4304-BB95-52C7BAE8D84D@gmail.com> <CAM=5oeBmCAq9unFGC2CBoJ3rZMm9MtDw1DWkFpo2ZqQtx3G%2B=Q@mail.gmail.com> <18391B9C-2FC4-427B-A4B6-1739B3C17498@gmail.com> <CAM=5oeAXiRn2aHvNPuZRPFJp6G45OqdQEDsz2_xGobCUHJp_VQ@mail.gmail.com> <CAM=5oeAybYZsn-TQTvfYO3Kx-chZULeYUEhg9fRMi-CFX0aYBA@mail.gmail.com> <B7C29F362A5045B48BF4CE223E7CE0AD@multiplay.co.uk> <CALfReyfDWTsgXf8JX-eNYOTFdkcYovUf0q=zGQPDUsEUi4nqbw@mail.gmail.com> <CAM=5oeAPG0Vfa-fT1t=Vc8FS_jJGBiR=yq0wuUmEZYLYB%2Br7RA@mail.gmail.com> <DD94A3B19E23453189D4A0C5AB58618A@multiplay.co.uk> <F1C5007B61404180A44CA5719C859EDE@multiplay.co.uk> <CAM=5oeDR3rSmxpffJnTFSkXMxRY0a0gz-NnogoQLhc4ih06gPw@mail.gmail.com>

next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
On Mon, 25 Nov 2013, Eric Browning wrote:

> I've tried to 4K align these SSDs with gnop but they are currently ashift
> 9.

Those are two different things.  Alignment is controlled by partition 
starting block and size.  Both should be integer multiples of 4K.

Using gnop to force ashift=12 just makes sure ZFS is using 4K blocks, it 
does not force alignment.



Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?alpine.BSF.2.00.1311251840370.49513>