I had luck with the following entry when I couldn't easily convince the matching to work, perhaps it's overkill for you.
sd-config-list = "**","physical-block-size:4096"; - Rich On Wed, Mar 20, 2013 at 10:54 AM, Hans J. Albertsson <hans.j.alberts...@branneriet.se> wrote: > Hmm. I'm having problems. > > I think I've followed the advice in > http://wiki.illumos.org/display/illumos/ZFS+and+Advanced+Format+disks > > format returns > --- > format> inq > Vendor: ATA > Product: WDC WD20EARS-00M > Revision: AB51 > format> > --- > > the last few lines in my sd.conf look like > --- > # > # The following stub node is needed for pathological bottom-up > # devid resolution on a self-identifying transport. > # > name="sd" class="scsi-self-identifying"; > > # > # Associate the driver with devid resolution. > # > ddi-devid-registrant=1; > sd-config-list="ATA WDC WD20EARS-00M", "physical-block-size:4096"; > --- > > but the checking command says: > > --- > root@klaus:/export/home/hans# echo "::sd_state" | mdb -k | egrep > '^un|blocksize' > un 0: 0 > un 1: 0 > un 2: 0 > un 3: ffffff02d730b080 > > un_sys_blocksize = 0x200 > un_tgt_blocksize = 0x200 > un_phy_blocksize = 0x200 > un_f_tgt_blocksize_is_valid = 0x1 > un 4: ffffff02d74b49c0 > > un_sys_blocksize = 0x200 > un_tgt_blocksize = 0x200 > un_phy_blocksize = 0x200 > un_f_tgt_blocksize_is_valid = 0x1 > un 5: ffffff02e9b5d680 > > un_sys_blocksize = 0x200 > un_tgt_blocksize = 0x200 > un_phy_blocksize = 0x200 > un_f_tgt_blocksize_is_valid = 0x1 > un 6: ffffff02e8caf900 > > un_sys_blocksize = 0x200 > un_tgt_blocksize = 0x200 > un_phy_blocksize = 0x200 > un_f_tgt_blocksize_is_valid = 0x1 > --- > > Unless I first run "format" once and actually look at one of either unit 5 > or 6, that mdb run only returns data for units 3 and 4, my built-in disks. > > Why won't my horrible little machine obey the sd.conf entry??? > > NOTE: all the above is from copy-paste from vi or cat in terminal windows. > > The WDC disks are in external ESATA connected Deltaco boxes. > > > On 2013-03-20 14:21, Reginald Beardsley wrote: >> >> FWIW >> >> This is how and shows what an ST2000DM001 properly configured using >> sd.conf reports: >> >> >> oi%rhb {2} echo "::sd_state" | mdb -k | egrep '^un|blocksize' >> un 0: ffffff0140ddfd00 >> un_sys_blocksize = 0x200 >> un_tgt_blocksize = 0x200 >> un_phy_blocksize = 0x1000 >> un_f_tgt_blocksize_is_valid = 1 >> >> 0x200 = 512 bytes >> 0x1000 = 4096 bytes >> >> Have Fun! >> Reg >> >> >> --- On Wed, 3/20/13, Hans J. Albertsson <hans.j.alberts...@branneriet.se> >> wrote: >> >>> From: Hans J. Albertsson <hans.j.alberts...@branneriet.se> >>> Subject: [OpenIndiana-discuss] How can one test in situ, and under OI, >>> the physical blocksize a SATA disk actually reports?? >>> To: openindiana-discuss@openindiana.org >>> Date: Wednesday, March 20, 2013, 8:05 AM >>> I absolutely need such a tool. Don't >>> ask... ah well, to impress a silly would-be colleague. >>> >>> I tried parted and gparted and a few others: but I can't >>> seem to make them report what I want to know. >>> >>> cfgadm, luxadm, ....??? >>> >>> >>> _______________________________________________ >>> OpenIndiana-discuss mailing list >>> OpenIndiana-discuss@openindiana.org >>> http://openindiana.org/mailman/listinfo/openindiana-discuss >>> >> _______________________________________________ >> OpenIndiana-discuss mailing list >> OpenIndiana-discuss@openindiana.org >> http://openindiana.org/mailman/listinfo/openindiana-discuss > > > > _______________________________________________ > OpenIndiana-discuss mailing list > OpenIndiana-discuss@openindiana.org > http://openindiana.org/mailman/listinfo/openindiana-discuss _______________________________________________ OpenIndiana-discuss mailing list OpenIndiana-discuss@openindiana.org http://openindiana.org/mailman/listinfo/openindiana-discuss
