From owner-freebsd-geom@FreeBSD.ORG Mon Aug 30 11:05:39 2010 Return-Path: Delivered-To: geom@freebsd.org Received: from mx1.freebsd.org (mx1.freebsd.org [IPv6:2001:4f8:fff6::34]) by hub.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 096A61065673; Mon, 30 Aug 2010 11:05:39 +0000 (UTC) (envelope-from des@des.no) Received: from smtp.des.no (smtp.des.no [194.63.250.102]) by mx1.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id BFA278FC1B; Mon, 30 Aug 2010 11:05:38 +0000 (UTC) Received: from ds4.des.no (des.no [84.49.246.2]) by smtp.des.no (Postfix) with ESMTP id D6B7A1FFC33; Mon, 30 Aug 2010 11:05:37 +0000 (UTC) Received: by ds4.des.no (Postfix, from userid 1001) id A421084507; Mon, 30 Aug 2010 13:05:37 +0200 (CEST) From: =?utf-8?Q?Dag-Erling_Sm=C3=B8rgrav?= To: Ilya Bakulin References: <86wrry1hwv.fsf@ds4.des.no> <20100828130912.48205a47@kibab.com> <20100828195024.3d671a76@kibab.com> <20100828204415.6875b4ec@kibab.com> Date: Mon, 30 Aug 2010 13:05:37 +0200 In-Reply-To: <20100828204415.6875b4ec@kibab.com> (Ilya Bakulin's message of "Sat, 28 Aug 2010 20:44:15 +0400") Message-ID: <86bp8kjr7i.fsf@ds4.des.no> User-Agent: Gnus/5.13 (Gnus v5.13) Emacs/23.2 (berkeley-unix) MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Cc: geom@freebsd.org, hackers@freebsd.org Subject: Re: Support for WD Advanced Format disks X-BeenThere: freebsd-geom@freebsd.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.5 Precedence: list List-Id: GEOM-specific discussions and implementations List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Mon, 30 Aug 2010 11:05:39 -0000 Ilya Bakulin writes: > So, ad7p1.nop is shifted by 512 bytes and resides right on the > beginning of the physical sector. And it has 4096 "sector" size. Why did you shift the gnop? Did you short jumper 7-8? > For some reason, phybs begins with sector size 8192... I expected it > to begin with 4096... It starts at 2 x reported sector size, because it is designed primarily to test alignment, not performance. > Perfomance is excellent! No, performance blows. See here: http://maycontaintracesofbolts.blogspot.com/2010/08/benchmarking-advanced-f= ormat-drives.html > Notice, that for two subsequent phybs invocations there is big > difference in timings for the same parameters. Yes. WD Green disks suck. DES --=20 Dag-Erling Sm=C3=B8rgrav - des@des.no