On Sun, Aug 26, 2012 at 11:14 AM, Alex Schuster wrote:
> Whatever. Then align to 8K instead. But what does this have to do with the
> erasable page size?
Short answer: Any page written to a block already containing data, the
whole block must be erased. This is the "erase block size" people talk
a
On Sun, 26 Aug 2012 13:41:09 +0200, Alex Schuster wrote:
> Besides that, it's not so easy to do the alignment, at least when using
> LVM. I read that LVM adds 192K header information, so even if you align
> the partition start to an erasable block size of 512K, the actual
> content is not align
Am Sonntag, 26. August 2012, 18:14:51 schrieb Alex Schuster:
> Am 26.08.2012 16:21, schrieb Volker Armin Hemmann:
> > Am Sonntag, 26. August 2012, 14:49:08 schrieb Alex Schuster:
> >> Volker Armin Hemmann writes:
> >>> Am Sonntag, 26. August 2012, 13:41:09 schrieb Alex Schuster:
> >> Yes, I know th
Am 26.08.2012 16:21, schrieb Volker Armin Hemmann:
Am Sonntag, 26. August 2012, 14:49:08 schrieb Alex Schuster:
Volker Armin Hemmann writes:
Am Sonntag, 26. August 2012, 13:41:09 schrieb Alex Schuster:
Yes, I know that. But why exactly does it help to align a partition to
the erasable block
Am Sonntag, 26. August 2012, 14:49:08 schrieb Alex Schuster:
> Volker Armin Hemmann writes:
> > Am Sonntag, 26. August 2012, 13:41:09 schrieb Alex Schuster:
> >> Frank Steinmetzger writes:
> >>> Unless the filesystem knows this and starts bigger files at those 512 k
> >>> boundaries (so really only
On Sat, Aug 25 2012, Frank Steinmetzger wrote:
> On Sun, Aug 26, 2012 at 12:22:47AM +0200, Volker Armin Hemmann wrote:
>
>> > > The size of an erasable block of SSDs is even larger, usually 512K, it
>> > > would be best to align to that, too. A partition offset of 512K or 1M
>> > > would avoid thi
Volker Armin Hemmann writes:
Am Sonntag, 26. August 2012, 13:41:09 schrieb Alex Schuster:
Frank Steinmetzger writes:
Unless the filesystem knows this and starts bigger files at those 512 k
boundaries (so really only one erase cycle is needed for files <=512 k),
isn't this fairly superfluous?
Am Sonntag, 26. August 2012, 13:41:09 schrieb Alex Schuster:
> Frank Steinmetzger writes:
> > On Thu, Aug 23, 2012 at 12:15:20PM +0200, Alex Schuster wrote:
> >> The size of an erasable block of SSDs is even larger, usually 512K, it
> >> would be best to align to that, too. A partition offset of 5
Frank Steinmetzger writes:
> On Thu, Aug 23, 2012 at 12:15:20PM +0200, Alex Schuster wrote:
The size of an erasable block of SSDs is even larger, usually 512K, it
would be best to align to that, too. A partition offset of 512K or 1M
would avoid this.
Unless the filesystem knows this and start
On Sun, Aug 26, 2012 at 12:22:47AM +0200, Volker Armin Hemmann wrote:
> > > The size of an erasable block of SSDs is even larger, usually 512K, it
> > > would be best to align to that, too. A partition offset of 512K or 1M
> > > would avoid this.
> >
> > Unless the filesystem knows this and start
Am Freitag, 24. August 2012, 11:25:48 schrieb Frank Steinmetzger:
> On Thu, Aug 23, 2012 at 12:15:20PM +0200, Alex Schuster wrote:
> > Mark Knecht writes:
> > > I'm currently just using a single large partition & ext3. I didn't
> > >
> > > do anything special in fdisk so the partition might no
On Thu, Aug 23, 2012 at 12:15:20PM +0200, Alex Schuster wrote:
> Mark Knecht writes:
>
> > I'm currently just using a single large partition & ext3. I didn't
> > do anything special in fdisk so the partition might not be aligned as
> > best it could be. I don't know.
>
> […]
> The size of an
On Thu, Aug 23, 2012 at 4:38 PM, Mark Knecht wrote:
> On Thu, Aug 23, 2012 at 12:30 PM, Michael Mol wrote:
>> On Thu, Aug 23, 2012 at 3:22 PM, Neil Bothwick wrote:
>
>>> If you want real performance from SSD, you ditch SATA altogether and use
>>> a drive on a dedicated card. Of course, you're t
On Thu, Aug 23, 2012 at 12:30 PM, Michael Mol wrote:
> On Thu, Aug 23, 2012 at 3:22 PM, Neil Bothwick wrote:
>> If you want real performance from SSD, you ditch SATA altogether and use
>> a drive on a dedicated card. Of course, you're talking real money now.
>
> Um. I'm pretty sure he's already
On Thu, Aug 23, 2012 at 3:34 PM, Mark Knecht wrote:
> On Thu, Aug 23, 2012 at 12:22 PM, Neil Bothwick wrote:
>> On Thu, 23 Aug 2012 11:57:25 -0700, Mark Knecht wrote:
>>
>>> This limitation is likely just a byproduct of using a 1 lane
>>> controller. If one was willing to spend a (fairly large) b
On Thu, Aug 23, 2012 at 12:22 PM, Neil Bothwick wrote:
> On Thu, 23 Aug 2012 11:57:25 -0700, Mark Knecht wrote:
>
>> This limitation is likely just a byproduct of using a 1 lane
>> controller. If one was willing to spend a (fairly large) bit more one
>> could get a 16 lane SATA3 controller and wou
On Thu, Aug 23, 2012 at 3:22 PM, Neil Bothwick wrote:
> On Thu, 23 Aug 2012 11:57:25 -0700, Mark Knecht wrote:
>
>> This limitation is likely just a byproduct of using a 1 lane
>> controller. If one was willing to spend a (fairly large) bit more one
>> could get a 16 lane SATA3 controller and woul
On Thu, 23 Aug 2012 11:57:25 -0700, Mark Knecht wrote:
> This limitation is likely just a byproduct of using a 1 lane
> controller. If one was willing to spend a (fairly large) bit more one
> could get a 16 lane SATA3 controller and would likely do much better
> in terms of throughput...
If you w
On Thu, Aug 23, 2012 at 8:55 AM, Mark Knecht wrote:
> On Wed, Aug 22, 2012 at 3:58 PM, Paul Hartman
> wrote:
>
>>
>> I think the only way we'lll see 500MB/sec on that SSD is to buy a
>> motherboard which has a SATA3 controller as its primary on-board drive
>> controller and plug it in to that.
>
On Wed, Aug 22, 2012 at 3:58 PM, Paul Hartman
wrote:
>
> I think the only way we'lll see 500MB/sec on that SSD is to buy a
> motherboard which has a SATA3 controller as its primary on-board drive
> controller and plug it in to that.
>
> Look on the bright side, someday when we upgrade our motherb
Mark,
On Thu, August 23, 2012 6:05 am, Mark Knecht wrote:
> From Kindle so short...
>
> Paul. Thanks. I'll double check tomorrow but the specs online said the
> slots were pci express 2.0. The card is a one lane card but the box
> says it can do 533M/S but boxes do lie sometimes.
The "2.0" part i
Mark Knecht writes:
I'm currently just using a single large partition & ext3. I didn't
do anything special in fdisk so the partition might not be aligned as
best it could be. I don't know.
See if the partition's starting block is 63 as it used to be in the
past. In this case the alignment
Am Mittwoch, 22. August 2012, 14:46:40 schrieb Mark Knecht:
> Hi,
>Yesterday I got a new, but rather low-end, PCIe-2 SATA-3 6Gb/S
> adapter card and a reportedly high performance 128GB SSD drive. (Links
> below) Other than my swap getting messed up because it didn't use
> labels (who knew about
>From Kindle so short...
Paul. Thanks. I'll double check tomorrow but the specs online said the
slots were pci express 2.0. The card is a one lane card but the box
says it can do 533M/S but boxes do lie sometimes.
I'll keep investigating and post back any new info.
Thanks,
Mark
Paul Hartman wrote:
> On Wed, Aug 22, 2012 at 4:46 PM, Mark Knecht wrote:
>> Hi,
>>Yesterday I got a new, but rather low-end, PCIe-2 SATA-3 6Gb/S
>> adapter card and a reportedly high performance 128GB SSD drive. (Links
>> below) Other than my swap getting messed up because it didn't use
>> la
On Wed, Aug 22, 2012 at 4:46 PM, Mark Knecht wrote:
> Hi,
>Yesterday I got a new, but rather low-end, PCIe-2 SATA-3 6Gb/S
> adapter card and a reportedly high performance 128GB SSD drive. (Links
> below) Other than my swap getting messed up because it didn't use
> labels (who knew about swapla
Hi,
Yesterday I got a new, but rather low-end, PCIe-2 SATA-3 6Gb/S
adapter card and a reportedly high performance 128GB SSD drive. (Links
below) Other than my swap getting messed up because it didn't use
labels (who knew about swaplabel but didn't tell me? ;-) ) the
adapter and drive are in the
27 matches
Mail list logo
