xfs
[Top] [All Lists]

Re: fs size of ext2 vs xfs

To: Damon <damon@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
Subject: Re: fs size of ext2 vs xfs
From: Eric Sandeen <sandeen@xxxxxxx>
Date: Sun, 7 Jul 2002 14:47:48 -0500 (CDT)
Cc: linux-xfs@xxxxxxxxxxx
In-reply-to: <KAEOIBGGOFEHHBPPOKPGAEOJCAAA.damon@damontsang.org>
Sender: owner-linux-xfs@xxxxxxxxxxx
hi Damon - 

The internal log for XFS will take up some room.

For a 16M filesystem, the default log size will be 1200 4k blocks, which
would account for the difference you are seeing.

You can specify a smaller log size with, for example:

mkfs.xfs -f -l size=512b /dev/foo

(512 blocks is as small as you can go for a 4k block fs.)

If you are doing lots of writes, the smaller log may impact your performance.

Also, FWIW, the constant log writes of any journaling filesystem
might be pretty hard on your CF disk...

-Eric

On Mon, 8 Jul 2002, Damon wrote:

> My machine is RH7.2 + XFS1.1 and I installed an additional 16M compact flesh 
> installed which regonized as /dev/hdc
> 
> I then use fdisk to make a Linux file system (#83) and format it as ext2 and 
> xfs. I find that the formatted size of ext2 is much bigger than xfs
> 
> The command to format the cf as follows:
> 
> ext2: mkfs.ext2 /dev/hdc1
> xfs: mkfs.xfs -f /dev/hdc1
> 
> size for two different fs as
> 
> ext2: ~14M
> xfs: ~10M
> 
> Is this normal or what I can do to format it as xfs with bigger resulting 
> size.
> 
> Best regards,
> Damon
> 


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