Re: fdisk(8) vs gpart(8), and gnop
--ZRLamLUCLuRJXeX8
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Disposition: inline
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
On Sat, May 31, 2014 at 08:42:42PM -0400, Michael W. Lucas wrote:
> Finally, while UFS isn't picky about changing the underlying sector
> size on a dump/restore, I believe it's a good idea to always gnop the
> underlying disk. Disks lie about sector size, and while it's OK to
> assume a 4k-sector disk, assuming a 512b-sector disk on a 4k-sector
> disk causes write multiplication.
>=20
> Are my beliefs correct?
FFS never reads/writes less than the fragment size for the data or
inode access. Default current setting for newfs is 4K fragment size.
Earlier the fragment size was 2K, AFAIR, but this is irrelevant for
the new disks, unless sector-to-sector copy is performed.
FFS uses cg block size to access cylinder groups, which is definitely
greater than 8K.
--ZRLamLUCLuRJXeX8
Content-Type: application/pgp-signature
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: GnuPG v2.0.22 (FreeBSD)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=2H04
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
--ZRLamLUCLuRJXeX8--
討論串 (同標題文章)
完整討論串 (本文為第 2 之 38 篇)：