[Top] [All Lists]

Re: Shrinking an XFS filesystem is a crucial feature!

To: "Karl M. Hegbloom" <karlheg@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
Subject: Re: Shrinking an XFS filesystem is a crucial feature!
From: Theo Van Dinter <felicity@xxxxxxxxx>
Date: Fri, 18 Jan 2002 19:29:25 -0500
Cc: linux-xfs@xxxxxxxxxxx
In-reply-to: <87wuyf5kbc.fsf@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>; from karlheg@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx on Fri, Jan 18, 2002 at 03:08:23PM -0800
References: <87wuyf5kbc.fsf@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
Sender: owner-linux-xfs@xxxxxxxxxxx
User-agent: Mutt/
On Fri, Jan 18, 2002 at 03:08:23PM -0800, Karl M. Hegbloom wrote:
>  I think that the ability to shrink an XFS filesystem is a crucial
>  feature that really should be implemented.  I wish I was capable of

I don't think shrinking can really be considered "crucial".  Are there times
that shrinking would be nice?  Absolutely.  How often is that?  Not very.

I'd much rather have folks spending their time on making XFS a super
stable/scalable/etc FS and leave shrinking as a "feature request" for
some time in the future.  Being "crucial" translates into "needs to be
done immediately", which most people probably wouldn't say of shrinking.

>  I had visions of using XFS on LVM volumes for our product.  I would
>  like to start with some default LV sizes, and have the ability to
>  shrink and grow them as needed to meet individual requirements.  For
>  this, I will need to use ext3fs.  (and very stable LVM; still
>  learning about it.)

You could either 1) figure out the requirements ahead of time and make the
LVs the correct size to start, or 2) make the LVs a minimum size to start and
grow the ones you need to as necessary.


Randomly Generated Tagline:
The weak and nerdy are admired for their computer-programming abilities.
                -- Homer Simpson
                   Bart vs. Australia

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