[Top] [All Lists]

Re: stress test on ppc

To: Thomas Graichen <graichen@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>, thomas.graichen@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
Subject: Re: stress test on ppc
From: "Nathan Scott" <nathans@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
Date: Sun, 26 Nov 2000 13:36:46 -0400
Cc: linux-xfs@xxxxxxxxxxx
In-reply-to: Thomas Graichen <news-innominate.list.sgi.xfs@innominate.de> "Re: stress test on ppc" (Nov 24, 1:21pm)
References: <news2mail-8uecj0$i5e$1@mate.bln.innominate.de> <news-innominate.list.sgi.xfs@innominate.de> <10011101103.ZM113097@wobbly.melbourne.sgi.com> <20001110094151.C333@ysabell> <10011110006.ZM127189@wobbly.melbourne.sgi.com> <news2mail-8uo7od$4lt$1@mate.bln.innominate.de> <10011141059.ZM128320@wobbly.melbourne.sgi.com> <news2mail-8utlfv$8iu$1@mate.bln.innominate.de> <10011221244.ZM158790@wobbly.melbourne.sgi.com> <news2mail-8vlq0n$hiu$2@mate.bln.innominate.de>
Sender: owner-linux-xfs@xxxxxxxxxxx
hi Thomas,

On Nov 24,  1:21pm, Thomas Graichen wrote:
> Subject: Re: stress test on ppc
> ...
> df gave: blocks=3136128 used=11488 avail=3124640
> blocksize from xfs_db is '524288'

that's the problem right there (the blocksize).

I don't understand how one could get a blocksize like
that since the test runs mkfs.xfs on the scratch device
and so should always have a blocksize of 4K (by default)
- see _populate_scratch() in the test, followed by the
blksize=... line a little further down.

> > (btw, any luck with ppc mount detecting a minix filesystem?)
> sorry- looks like this was my fault: minix fs was simply not compiled
> into the kernel :-(

no, that wouldn't affect this test - its all user space
testing of mkfs (no actual mount happens), so no kernel
support for other filesystems is required.

> ... works now

*shrug* - must have been an alignment-of-the-planets issue.



<Prev in Thread] Current Thread [Next in Thread>