Use the bdev_physical_block_size() interface to determine the
minimize write size which can be issued without incurring a
read-modify-write operation. This is used to set the ashift
correctly to prevent a performance penalty when using AF hard
disks.
Unfortunately, this interface isn't entirely reliable because
it's not uncommon for disks to misreport this value. For this
reason you may still need to manually set your ashift with:
zpool create -o ashift=12 ...
The solution to this in the upstream Illumos source was to add
a white list of known offending drives. Maintaining such a list
will be a burden, but it still may be worth doing if we can
detect a large number of these drives. This should be considered
as future work.
Reported-by: Richard Yao <ryao@cs.stonybrook.edu>
Signed-off-by: Brian Behlendorf <behlendorf1@llnl.gov>
Closes#916
This reverts commit 395350c85d which
accidentally introduced issue #955.
Pools using AF drives which were originally created with a sector
size of 512 bytes will now be correctly detected to have physical
sector size of 4096. This is desirable for a new pool, however for
an existing pool abruptly changing the sector size causes problems.
For this reason, this change is being reverted until the additional
logic can be added to detect the existing pool case. Existing
pools must use the ashift size stored in the label regardless of
what the disk reports. This is critical for compatibility.
Signed-off-by: Brian Behlendorf <behlendorf1@llnl.gov>
Issue #955
Use the bdev_physical_block_size() interface to determine the
minimize write size which can be issued without incurring a
read-modify-write operation. This is used to set the ashift
correctly to prevent a performance penalty when using AF hard
disks.
Unfortunately, this interface isn't entirely reliable because
it's not uncommon for disks to misreport this value. For this
reason you may still need to manually set your ashift with:
zpool create -o ashift=12 ...
The solution to this in the upstream Illumos source was to add
a while list of known offending drives. Maintaining such a list
will be a burden, but it still may be worth doing if we can
detect a large number of these drives. This should be considered
as future work.
Reported-by: Richard Yao <ryao@cs.stonybrook.edu>
Signed-off-by: Brian Behlendorf <behlendorf1@llnl.gov>
Closes#916
