tech-kern archive

[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index][Old Index]

Re: Problem identified: WAPL/RAIDframe performance problems

On Sun, 2 Dec 2012 04:04:23 +0000
David Holland <> wrote:

> On Sun, Dec 02, 2012 at 03:22:24AM +0000, Julian Yon wrote:
>  > > 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.
>  > 
>  > If code makes that assumption, how does the reported block size
>  > affect that? Lying is illogical. Code either assumes a specific
>  > size (and ignores what you tell it), or it believes what it's
>  > told. Either way, dishonesty gains nothing.
> If code just blindly makes that assumption, it's ignoring what's being
> reported.

You appear to have just agreed with me, which makes me wonder what I'm
missing, given you continue as though you disagree.

> I assume there is or was code in Windows (like we used to have code in
> NetBSD) that would check the sector size and refuse to run if it
> wasn't 512.

IMHO any time you do the same thing as Windows, you're almost certainly
doing it wrong.

> However, we're talking about hardware here, so you have to also
> consider the possibility that the drive firmware reports 512 because
> that's what someone coded up back in 1992 and nobody got around to
> fixing it.

If that doesn't count as broken, what does? (Also, gosh, when did 1992
become so long ago?)


3072D/F3A66B3A Julian Yon (2012 General Use) <>

Attachment: signature.asc
Description: PGP signature

Home | Main Index | Thread Index | Old Index