Martin Steigerwald
2011-May-14 07:31 UTC
data alignment for SSD: Stripe size or sector size given with -s?
Hi!> [ANNOUNCE] Btrfs v0.9 > [...] > * Stripe size parameter to mkfs.btrfs (-s size_in_bytes). Extents will > be aligned to the stripe size for performance. > [...]http://fixunix.com/kernel/258991-[announce]-btrfs-v0-9-a.html versus> -s, --sectorsize size > Specify the sectorsize, the minimum block allocation.(man mkfs.btrfs with btrfs-tools 0.19+20101101-1 debian package). Which one applies? Or do both mention the same? My notion of a sector is something different tough. I wonder how to set a stripe size for alignment to erase blocks of an Intel SSD 320. Or whether to set anything at all. I want to try to use GPT with ThinkPad T520 UEFI BIOS. I read from Chris that metadata is basically aligned at 2 MiB already with mount option "ssd" which is default for non rotational media:> Today, metadata allocations are 4k aligned but we do metadata > allocations in cluster of 256k in size (2MB in size in mount -o ssd > mode). This results in larger metadata writes, and more contiguous > metadata writes. The larger writes give the SSD FTL a better chance of > doing more optimal management of the flash.(Re: SSDs and filesystem alignment... from 2009-02-23, Message-Id: <1235398980.11205.5.camel@think.oraclecorp.com>) But what about data alignment? Ciao, -- Martin ''Helios'' Steigerwald - http://www.Lichtvoll.de GPG: 03B0 0D6C 0040 0710 4AFA B82F 991B EAAC A599 84C7
Seemingly Similar Threads
- Using compression on SSD
- Write barrier support in ext3
- Re: [PATCH 3/3] filemap: don't call generic_write_sync for -EIOCBQUEUED
- Re: [Bug #27842] [regression?] hang with 2.6.37 on a BTRFS test machine
- /home on BTRFS on SSD, now highly fragmenting virtuoso database - use autodefrag?