Fresh FreeNAS-9.3-STABLE-201512121950 install creates da0p2 w/non-native block size

[dilacerated]

Replaced my boot USB's last night via a fresh install. Am now using two Mushkin MKNUFDVS16GB's (http://poweredbymushkin.com/index.p...item?id=705:ventura-plus-16gb-usb-flash-drive).

When installing to the first drive, via optical media (burned FreeNAS-9.3-STABLE-201512121950.iso), I stepped away and upon coming back briefly saw a message about the created da0p2 being of a non-native alignment/8388608B native. The install finished successfully and post reboot I restored my config backup and then mirrored freenas-boot with the second drive.

Once that was done I checked the zpool status and saw this:

[root@fn9x] ~# zpool status -v freenas-boot
pool: freenas-boot
state: ONLINE
status: One or more devices are configured to use a non-native block size.
Expect reduced performance.
action: Replace affected devices with devices that support the
configured block size, or migrate data to a properly configured
pool.
scan: resilvered 907M in 0h6m with 0 errors on Sun Jan 10 20:46:18 2016
config:

NAME STATE READ WRITE CKSUM
freenas-boot ONLINE 0 0 0
mirror-0 ONLINE 0 0 0
gptid/ef68040c-b7d6-11e5-b30b-000000000000 ONLINE 0 0 0 block size: 8192B configured, 8388608B native
gptid/65893fbf-b81d-11e5-85e2-001b21abba5c ONLINE 0 0 0 block size: 8192B configured, 8388608B native

errors: No known data errors
​

Don't think I should be but I figured I'd ask the FreeNAS Community --> should I be concerned? Honestly these drives fly vs. the prior two 3-4 year old USB 2.0 Mushkin USB drives I was booting from. Resilvering took 1/3 the time with these new drives.

If you consider this an issue how can I resolve this if during installation it is creating da0p2 on the drive using a block size of 8192B?

 

[mav@]

You should probably just ignore those messages. It seems like this USB stick reports 8MB block size. While it is not absolutely impossible, this value is at least useless for ZFS. I believe that this side of ZFS indeed should get some more love to be more resilent to such crazy cases, but that is not a huge problem now.

 

[dilacerated]

You should probably just ignore those messages. It seems like this USB stick reports 8MB block size. While it is not absolutely impossible, this value is at least useless for ZFS. I believe that this side of ZFS indeed should get some more love to be more resilent to such crazy cases, but that is not a huge problem now.

Felt like ignoring it and have done so thus far. Figured I'd ask to see if there was any input to the contrary. So that's one for ignore to go along with my vote --> thanks!

Anyone else?