Invalid ashift increase allowed by r253441

[Xin Li]

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
Hash: SHA256

On 8/1/13 1:24 AM, Steven Hartland wrote:
> When I first thought about this I was in agreement that it really 
> should deal with this case but then I thought about the overhead 
> this would add for and every single IO request, and was would that
> really be worth it?
> 
> Given the performance impact that is very evident when you use 
> SSD's that lie about their sector size I'd have to say I don't 
> think so.

I'm not sure if I have followed -- could you be more specific on what
kind of overhead?  (Speaking for the escalated read or read before
write, I think we just can't avoid it without recreating the pool,
assuming an ashift=9 image is dd'ed into an ashift=12 storage.)

Or are you talking about something that I have overlooked?

Cheers,

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----

iQEcBAEBCAAGBQJR+iBiAAoJEG80Jeu8UPuz2KAIAJCCUmoj5d6TjclpVg+wdjT+
QZ9hO7sI8Awoes8k4YGUjWAJHia7IgFxrASVgdKJlDBXUB92QoFGnXnHvaIZxLzY
XhIL9vgVi/2roLzG/mlkmaXVPuuso1nCjE+6wVu9tl9+SkaGOYhVEZLsbdqftLHl
MlwxqbCNIWXPmc1JkpPWDnU6fUEPe6iyjVtZqMZnNkWvrt4R6Uc63DTUL/NrVnrJ
N/cbItQlvQb1CEyoVyW/1lybQXJERlRdit4XVicF8EMX9YMHX42XpkpDt0YjdaTM
lLE0vOUaK9igmdCiFqB86pH/SWEg/DiLJBv80FBNxCF0i+kE40RfQ9vMvIkB7z4=
=o2h2
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----