Thanks for your reply. This list is amazing. I got responses from 3 people in
about 20 minutes!
Nobody really commented on my other uncertainty, though. How big of a
partition do I need for the journal file? If the journal file is 10000 blocks,
does that translate into MBs? And do I want a larger journal file? I'm mostly
going to be storing HUGE (i.e., 50 MB to 2 GB) video files on the RAID. The
is 600 GBs. So, I won't have more than a couple of thousand files. How do you
calculate how big a journal partition to make?
And does it matter what kind of "flag" I put on the partition with fdisk? Is
83 (Linux) fine? I don't think I need "fp" (RAID Autostart). I don't want to
start my RAIDS manually anyway.
Finally, should I really see a significant speed up in I/O with the journal
on a separate drive? Is it only during writing that I'll see the speed up?
In a message dated 10/29/2003 4:20:33 PM Eastern Standard Time,
On Wed, Oct 29, 2003 at 03:10:20PM -0500, AndyLiebman@xxxxxxx wrote:
> The command mkfs.xfs -f -l logdev=/dev/hdb3,size=10000b -b size=4096
> /dev/md3 is accepted by the system. It looks as if I formatted the RAID
with XFS and
> put the journal on in a separate place.
> But when I try to mount the RAID as I did above, I get the following error:
> mount: wrong fs type, bad option, bad superblock on /dev/md3
> or too many mounted file systems.
> I believe I also tried something like mount -t xfs logdev=dev/hdb3
> I think I also tried mount -t xfs logdev=dev/hdb3,size=10000b /dev/md3
> Does anybody have any ideas about what the trouble is?
You need to use the -o option to mount(8), and use the full
device paths -- i.e.
mount -t xfs -ologdev=/dev/hdb3 /dev/md3
There is no size= mount option to XFS (mount(8) has the list),
that information is obtained from the superblock.