Skip to content
New issue

Have a question about this project? Sign up for a free GitHub account to open an issue and contact its maintainers and the community.

By clicking “Sign up for GitHub”, you agree to our terms of service and privacy statement. We’ll occasionally send you account related emails.

Already on GitHub? Sign in to your account

PERC H965i and all Dell PERC 12 controllers are only supporting 4K sectors #665

Open
olivierlambert opened this issue Jan 3, 2024 · 6 comments

Comments

@olivierlambert
Copy link

Per this discussion: https://xcp-ng.org/forum/topic/8150/sr_backend_failure_78-vdi-creation-failed-opterr-error-22

I see 2 options:

  1. "Fixing" this in SMAPIv1 if it's not too complicated
  2. Going faster on SMAPIv3 to at least have a working local SR driver

We are preparing an "upstream" kickoff for SMAPIv3 and the priorities, but before doing that, I wanted to get a feeling on option 1, if it's doable or not at all (ie too much efforts). What's your opinion @MarkSymsCtx ?

@olivierlambert
Copy link
Author

Re-ping @MarkSymsCtx (adding also @edwintorok or @TimSmithCtx if Mark is away)

@edwintorok
Copy link
Contributor

We're well aware of the 4K limitation and been working on it for a while. I'll let others report on the progress as I'm not directly involved in that work. Indeed doing this on SMAPIv1 is not very feasible.

@olivierlambert
Copy link
Author

Thank you! As we told many times, we are happy to help/contribute instead of re-inventing the wheel on our side. Anything shared will be helpful to solve that more efficiently 👍

@edwintorok
Copy link
Contributor

See also QubesOS/qubes-issues#4974 for some of the complexities around exposing 4K sector size to guests (although that is a different matter from supporting it on the host).
That issue mentions using losetup --sector-size to fake 512 on 4K, but I never tried whether you can then create a local SR on top of that and have everything working, but it might be a temporary workaround until we can get something better inplace.

@olivierlambert
Copy link
Author

olivierlambert commented Jan 12, 2024

Thanks for the details.

So one can assume if there's no great solution for SMAPIv1, some efforts already started in SMAPIv3 internally at XenServer. Would XS storage team cooperate on this or then should we spread the effort and do the same thing on our side twice but in the open for same result? (I know it sounds as a rhetorical question but still…)

Sign up for free to join this conversation on GitHub. Already have an account? Sign in to comment
Labels
None yet
Projects
None yet
Development

No branches or pull requests

2 participants