lkml.org 
[lkml]   [2003]   [Mar]   [12]   [last100]   RSS Feed
Views: [wrap][no wrap]   [headers]  [forward] 
 
Messages in this thread
/
Date
From
SubjectRe: bio too big device
On Wed, Mar 12 2003, Alan Cox wrote:
> On Wed, 2003-03-12 at 09:09, Jens Axboe wrote:
> > On Wed, Mar 12 2003, Andre Hedrick wrote:
> > >
> > > So lets dirty list the one drive by Paul G. and be done.
> > > Can we do that?
> >
> > Who cares, really? There's not much point in doing it, we're talking 248
> > vs 256 sectors in reality. I think it's a _bad_ idea, lets just keep it
> > at 255 and avoid silly drive bugs there.
>
> 255 trashes your performance, 128 will perform far better with most
> setups. This is especially true with raid setups. I'd much rather we

Then go with 128. I'd like to stress again that _if_ you get worse
performance it's not due to the request being a bit smaller, but indeed
because 248 can cause badly aligned requests.

> got the IDE layer using 256 block writes even if we have to limit it
> to more modern drives by some handwaving (8Gb+ say)

Does Windows use 256 sector requests or not? If not, then I'd sure don't
want to do it in Linux, the handwaving doesn't mean anything then.

--
Jens Axboe

-
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majordomo@vger.kernel.org
More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/

\
 
 \ /
  Last update: 2005-03-22 13:33    [W:0.064 / U:2.732 seconds]
©2003-2020 Jasper Spaans|hosted at Digital Ocean and TransIP|Read the blog|Advertise on this site