Re: Problem identified: WAPL/RAIDframe performance problems

[David Holland <dholland-tech%netbsd.org@localhost>]

On Sun, Dec 02, 2012 at 01:32:17AM +0000, Julian Yon wrote:
 > > I don't care about the block granularity of the interface. (Unless I
 > > suppose it's larger than the atomic write size; but that would be
 > > weird.)
 > 
 > If it's smaller than the atomic write size that's equally weird.
 > Because that implies that the designers have made the explicit decision
 > to sacrifice performance for no gain. But there is a cost: they had to
 > write firmware code to emulate that block size.

It's not weird, and there is a gain; it's for compatibility with large
amounts of deployed code that assumes all devices have 512-byte blocks.

-- 
David A. Holland
dholland%netbsd.org@localhost