Re: [Lse-tech] Re: Preliminary results of using multiblock raw I/O

• Next message: DevilKin: "Re: More memory == better?"
• Previous message: Eric: "Re: [Q] pivot_root and initrd"
• In reply to: Alan Cox: "Re: [Lse-tech] Re: Preliminary results of using multiblock raw I/O"
• Next in thread: Alan Cox: "Re: [Lse-tech] Re: Preliminary results of using multiblock raw I/O"
• Reply: Alan Cox: "Re: [Lse-tech] Re: Preliminary results of using multiblock raw I/O"
• Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ] [ subject ] [ author ]

On Tue, Oct 23 2001, Alan Cox wrote:
> > request the lower level driver can handle. This is typically 127kB, for
> > SCSI it can be as much as 512kB currently and depending on the SCSI
>
> We really btw should make scsi default to 128K - otherwise all the raid
> stuff tends to go 127K, 1K, 127K, 1K and have to handle partial stripe
> read/writes

Fine with me, the major reason for doing 255 sectors and not 256 was IDE
of course... So feel free to change the default host max_sectors to 256.

-- 
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/

• Next message: DevilKin: "Re: More memory == better?"
• Previous message: Eric: "Re: [Q] pivot_root and initrd"
• In reply to: Alan Cox: "Re: [Lse-tech] Re: Preliminary results of using multiblock raw I/O"
• Next in thread: Alan Cox: "Re: [Lse-tech] Re: Preliminary results of using multiblock raw I/O"
• Reply: Alan Cox: "Re: [Lse-tech] Re: Preliminary results of using multiblock raw I/O"
• Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ] [ subject ] [ author ]

This archive was generated by hypermail 2b29 : Tue Oct 23 2001 - 21:00:40 EST