Skip site navigation (1)Skip section navigation (2)
Date:      Tue, 18 Sep 2012 16:25:33 +0300
From:      Volodymyr Kostyrko <c.kworr@gmail.com>
To:        Gary Palmer <gpalmer@freebsd.org>
Cc:        freebsd-fs@freebsd.org
Subject:   Re: AW: AW: AW: AW: AW: ZFS: Corrupted pool metadata after adding vdev to a pool - no opportunity to rescue data from healthy vdevs? Remove a vdev? Rewrite metadata?
Message-ID:  <5058764D.1010403@gmail.com>
In-Reply-To: <20120918131441.GC77784@in-addr.com>
References:  <000001cd9239$ed734c80$c859e580$@goelli.de> <5052EC5D.4060403@gmail.com> <000a01cd9274$0aa0bba0$1fe232e0$@goelli.de> <505322C9.70200@gmail.com> <000001cd9377$e9e9b010$bdbd1030$@goelli.de> <50559CD8.1070700@gmail.com> <000001cd94f1$a4157030$ec405090$@goelli.de> <50581033.4040102@gmail.com> <20120918112355.GB77784@in-addr.com> <50586B99.40108@gmail.com> <20120918131441.GC77784@in-addr.com>

Next in thread | Previous in thread | Raw E-Mail | Index | Archive | Help
18.09.2012 16:14, Gary Palmer wrote:
>> Please understand me correctly, this is only my point of view on the
>> problem as I never saw any tests that show difference between correct
>> alignment of _partitions_ and alignment on _records_ on ZFS. This area
>> is not thoroughly covered with test data.
>
> I seem to recall that people made 4 kilobyte aligned partitions on
> advanced format drives without doing the gnop trick and still
> suffered worse performance than when they did the gnop trick to make
> ashift=12.  Check the list archives.
>
> If you believe there is insufficient testing here and are saying that
> conventional wisdom regarding this is wrong, it is resonable to request
> that you prove your position.

I have one of the first 4k drives yet it's not yet available for 
testing. I'm planning to rerun tests on it when it will be available.

-- 
Sphinx of black quartz judge my vow.



Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <http://docs.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?5058764D.1010403>