xfs
[Top] [All Lists]

Re: Problems with mkfs.xfs

To: Detlef Vollmann <dv@xxxxxxxxxxx>
Subject: Re: Problems with mkfs.xfs
From: Nathan Scott <nathans@xxxxxxx>
Date: Thu, 9 Aug 2001 13:09:28 +1000
Cc: XFS list <linux-xfs@xxxxxxxxxxx>
In-reply-to: <3B71F762.58CD4725@vollmann.ch>; from dv@vollmann.ch on Thu, Aug 09, 2001 at 02:37:22AM +0000
References: <3B71F762.58CD4725@vollmann.ch>
Sender: owner-linux-xfs@xxxxxxxxxxx
User-agent: Mutt/1.2.5i
hi,

On Thu, Aug 09, 2001 at 02:37:22AM +0000, Detlef Vollmann wrote:
> On writing a small testsuite for a simple utility, I hit
> several problems with mkfs.xfs (1.2.0):
> 
> Minor problem: syntax
> mkfs.xfs does not conform to the mkfs syntax (at least not to
> the one described in mkfs(8) on Linux and which I know since
> more than 15 years now :-}
>   mkfs -t xfs /dev/xxx 1234
> produces just an error message on the size parameter :-(
> 

Hmm... yes, you're right.  If it's a problem, send a patch.
You're the first person to notice this in well over a year now,
so I guess it just hasn't bothered most people.

> Bigger problem: semantics
> In the native mkfs.xfs option list, I found nothing that resembles
> the size parameter of the original mkfs command.  I had to do
> some computations and give size parameters for the different
> parts (data and logging).

You're after the -d size=XXXb option, which I think would most
closely match the optional [blocks] parameter of mkfs.

> 
> Real problem: size itself
> I tried to create an xfs filesystem on a 4MB ramdisk (/dev/ram0),
> but I found no combination of option that succeeded.
> Did I not try hard enouh or is the lower limit for xfs size
> larger than 4MB?
> 

Yes - the minimum is 16MB, if I remember correctly (ie. the
minimum size of one allocation group).

cheers.

-- 
Nathan


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