Date: Tue, 24 May 2011 11:12:10 -0700 From: Marcel Moolenaar <xcllnt@mac.com> To: Warner Losh <imp@bsdimp.com> Cc: "Andrey V. Elsukov" <bu7cher@yandex.ru>, Andriy Gapon <avg@FreeBSD.org>, freebsd-geom@FreeBSD.org Subject: Re: [RFC] Remove requirement of alignment to track from MBR scheme Message-ID: <9B250685-62F2-4AF7-BDCC-D176FA3C6FCD@mac.com> In-Reply-To: <2FCA1E3C-E11C-46C9-A41B-E5DF4D8BA1FC@bsdimp.com> References: <4DDA2F0B.2040203@yandex.ru> <D75B2856-D9D8-4BA3-BC54-8258610CEA06@xcllnt.net> <9ED563AB-7B35-40F4-A33E-015317858401@bsdimp.com> <4DDB5375.6050004@FreeBSD.org> <D7C4124D-A690-4960-B141-594C7E2BE792@mac.com> <2FCA1E3C-E11C-46C9-A41B-E5DF4D8BA1FC@bsdimp.com>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
On May 24, 2011, at 10:46 AM, Warner Losh wrote: >> All I'm saying: be careful. > > Agreed. But the care should be on the creation side, not on the interpretation side. ... as the original code was. We just need to add a sanity check to the interpretation that filters out the real bogus information (resulting in a partition with negative size). With respect to the creation: Since out synthesized geometry is not necessarily the same as other OSes, we could opt to synthesize a geometry that has a track size (= sectors/track) that is a multiple of 8 (to play nice with 4K sectors), and/or take the stripe size of the underlying GEOM into account. This fundamentally doesn't change a thing for MBR, but has the side effect of achieving some of the goals *and* automatically works for EBR as well. Thus: rather than hack MBR and forgetting about EBR and other schemes, maybe we only have to tweak the geometry synthesis to give people what they want without going over board. After 9.0 branched, we can do a lot more knowing we have plenty of soak time... -- Marcel Moolenaar xcllnt@mac.com
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?9B250685-62F2-4AF7-BDCC-D176FA3C6FCD>