From owner-freebsd-stable@freebsd.org  Sat Feb 29 19:06:06 2020
Return-Path: <owner-freebsd-stable@freebsd.org>
Delivered-To: freebsd-stable@mailman.nyi.freebsd.org
Received: from mx1.freebsd.org (mx1.freebsd.org [IPv6:2610:1c1:1:606c::19:1])
 by mailman.nyi.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 4E7A4265AAC
 for <freebsd-stable@mailman.nyi.freebsd.org>;
 Sat, 29 Feb 2020 19:06:06 +0000 (UTC)
 (envelope-from uspensky@x-art.ru)
Received: from x-art.ru (charibdis.x-art.ru [80.70.228.55])
 by mx1.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 48VG8Y0dgyz4MWs
 for <freebsd-stable@freebsd.org>; Sat, 29 Feb 2020 19:06:04 +0000 (UTC)
 (envelope-from uspensky@x-art.ru)
Received: from gw-old.x-art.ru (gw-old.x-art.ru [192.168.172.252])
 by mta.x-art.ru (Postfix) with ESMTP id 5B6021BF30A;
 Sat, 29 Feb 2020 22:05:57 +0300 (MSK)
Date: Sat, 29 Feb 2020 22:05:56 +0300 (MSK)
From: Antony Uspensky <uspensky@x-art.ru>
X-X-Sender: aiu@gw-old.x-art.ru
To: Chris <bsd-lists@BSDforge.com>
cc: freebsd-stable@freebsd.org
Subject: Re: Running FreeBSD on M.2 SSD
In-Reply-To: <10e3153ee81dcd7919079cd0bfc16656@udns.ultimatedns.net>
Message-ID: <alpine.BSF.2.00.2002292200450.16475@gw-old.x-art.ru>
References: <10e3153ee81dcd7919079cd0bfc16656@udns.ultimatedns.net>
User-Agent: Alpine 2.00 (BSF 1167 2008-08-23)
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII; format=flowed
X-Rspamd-Queue-Id: 48VG8Y0dgyz4MWs
X-Spamd-Bar: /
Authentication-Results: mx1.freebsd.org; dkim=none; dmarc=none;
 spf=none (mx1.freebsd.org: domain of uspensky@x-art.ru has no SPF policy when
 checking 80.70.228.55) smtp.mailfrom=uspensky@x-art.ru
X-Spamd-Result: default: False [0.51 / 15.00]; ARC_NA(0.00)[];
 FROM_HAS_DN(0.00)[]; TO_DN_SOME(0.00)[];
 NEURAL_HAM_LONG(-0.54)[-0.538,0]; MIME_GOOD(-0.10)[text/plain];
 DMARC_NA(0.00)[x-art.ru]; AUTH_NA(1.00)[];
 NEURAL_SPAM_MEDIUM(0.04)[0.042,0];
 TO_MATCH_ENVRCPT_SOME(0.00)[]; RCPT_COUNT_TWO(0.00)[2];
 R_SPF_NA(0.00)[]; RCVD_NO_TLS_LAST(0.10)[];
 FROM_EQ_ENVFROM(0.00)[]; R_DKIM_NA(0.00)[];
 MIME_TRACE(0.00)[0:+];
 ASN(0.00)[asn:20807, ipnet:80.70.224.0/20, country:RU];
 RCVD_COUNT_TWO(0.00)[2]; IP_SCORE(0.00)[country: RU(0.01)]
X-BeenThere: freebsd-stable@freebsd.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.29
Precedence: list
List-Id: Production branch of FreeBSD source code <freebsd-stable.freebsd.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/options/freebsd-stable>, 
 <mailto:freebsd-stable-request@freebsd.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <http://lists.freebsd.org/pipermail/freebsd-stable/>
List-Post: <mailto:freebsd-stable@freebsd.org>
List-Help: <mailto:freebsd-stable-request@freebsd.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-stable>,
 <mailto:freebsd-stable-request@freebsd.org?subject=subscribe>
X-List-Received-Date: Sat, 29 Feb 2020 19:06:06 -0000



On Fri, 28 Feb 2020, Chris wrote:

> The TLDR of 4k vs 512 largely has to do with the size of the files going
> onto your medium. Many files of a smaller size fit better on a 512 boundary.
> Whereas larger mp3s or archives fair better on a 4k boundary. BTW these are
> called SECTOR sizes. Not pages. :) 4k blocks typically read faster, than the
> 512 blocks (sectors). Because more data can be consumed in one read/write.
> So really, your going to have to decide how best to "tune" your disk to best
> suite it's intended use. Many small files. Or big files, and storage.

You're absolutely wrong.
ZFS writes transaction groups, not files.
Read something on ZFS, e.g. Handbook.
A.