Date: Fri, 19 Nov 1999 10:17:20 -0500 From: Greg Lehey <grog@mojave.sitaranetworks.com> To: Simon Shapiro <shimon@simon-shapiro.org>, Bernd Walter <ticso@cicely.de> Cc: Mattias Pantzare <pantzer@ludd.luth.se>, freebsd-fs@FreeBSD.ORG Subject: Re: RAID-5 and failure Message-ID: <19991119101720.35872@mojave.sitaranetworks.com> In-Reply-To: <3834D45C.1F963B3B@simon-shapiro.org>; from Simon Shapiro on Thu, Nov 18, 1999 at 11:38:52PM -0500 References: <ticso@cicely.de> <199911061716.SAA20783@zed.ludd.luth.se> <19991106183316.A9420@cicely7.cicely.de> <3834D45C.1F963B3B@simon-shapiro.org>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
On Thursday, 18 November 1999 at 23:38:52 -0500, Simon Shapiro wrote: > Bernd Walter wrote: >> >> I asume that's the reason why some systems use 520 byte sectors - maybe they >> write timestamps or generationnumbers in a single write within the sector. > > 528. 512 data, 16 ECC for the sector. Nothing to do with RAID. There are various sizes. I've had surplus disks with 516 and 520 byte sectors. But yes, they're usually under hardware control. Greg -- Finger grog@lemis.com for PGP public key See complete headers for address and phone numbers To Unsubscribe: send mail to majordomo@FreeBSD.org with "unsubscribe freebsd-fs" in the body of the message
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?19991119101720.35872>