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/
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b29 : Sat Mar 15 2003 - 22:00:30 EST