freebsd stable - Apr 2019 - about zfs and ashift and changing ashift on existing zpool

09.04.2019 7:00, Kevin P. Neal wrote:
>> My guess (given that only ada1 is reporting a blocksize mismatch) is
that
>> your disks reported a 512B native blocksize.  In the absence of any
override,
>> ZFS will then build an ashift=9 pool.
[skip]
> smartctl 7.0 2018-12-30 r4883 [FreeBSD 11.2-RELEASE-p4 amd64] (local build)
> Copyright (C) 2002-18, Bruce Allen, Christian Franke, www.smartmontools.org
> 
> === START OF INFORMATION SECTION ==> Vendor:               SEAGATE
> Product:              ST2400MM0129
> Revision:             C003
> Compliance:           SPC-4
> User Capacity:        2,400,476,553,216 bytes [2.40 TB]
> Logical block size:   512 bytes
> Physical block size:  4096 bytes
Maybe it't time to prefer "Physical block size" over "Logical
block size" in relevant GEOMs
like GEOM_DISK, so upper levels such as ZFS would do the right thing
automatically.

On 08.04.2019 20:21, Eugene Grosbein wrote:
> 09.04.2019 7:00, Kevin P. Neal wrote:
> 
>>> My guess (given that only ada1 is reporting a blocksize mismatch)
is that
>>> your disks reported a 512B native blocksize.  In the absence of any
override,
>>> ZFS will then build an ashift=9 pool.
> 
> [skip]
> 
>> smartctl 7.0 2018-12-30 r4883 [FreeBSD 11.2-RELEASE-p4 amd64] (local
build)
>> Copyright (C) 2002-18, Bruce Allen, Christian Franke,
www.smartmontools.org
>>
>> === START OF INFORMATION SECTION ==>> Vendor:              
SEAGATE
>> Product:              ST2400MM0129
>> Revision:             C003
>> Compliance:           SPC-4
>> User Capacity:        2,400,476,553,216 bytes [2.40 TB]
>> Logical block size:   512 bytes
>> Physical block size:  4096 bytes
> 
> Maybe it't time to prefer "Physical block size" over
"Logical block size" in relevant GEOMs
> like GEOM_DISK, so upper levels such as ZFS would do the right thing
automatically.
No.  It is a bad idea.  Changing logical block size for existing disks
will most likely result in breaking compatibility and inability to read
previously written data.  ZFS already uses physical block size when
possible -- on pool creation or new vdev addition.  When not possible
(pool already created wrong) it just complains about it, so that user
would know that his configuration is imperfect and he should not expect
full performance.

-- 
Alexander Motin