[lkml]   [2003]   [Mar]   [12]   [last100]   RSS Feed
Views: [wrap][no wrap]   [headers]  [forward] 
Messages in this thread
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
More majordomo info at
Please read the FAQ at

 \ /
  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