xfs
[Top] [All Lists]

Re: Linux 2.4.22 XFS 1.3.1 reservation ran out

To: Eric Sandeen <sandeen@xxxxxxx>
Subject: Re: Linux 2.4.22 XFS 1.3.1 reservation ran out
From: Jan Derfinak <ja@xxxxxxxxxxxx>
Date: Mon, 1 Dec 2003 17:56:49 +0100 (CET)
Cc: linux-xfs@xxxxxxxxxxx
In-reply-to: <1070296349.28534.9.camel@stout.americas.sgi.com>
References: <Pine.LNX.4.44.0310270844480.9654-100000@stout.americas.sgi.com> <3FC6E5C4.2080009@cse.iitb.ac.in> <20031129085715.A1872948@wobbly.melbourne.sgi.com> <Pine.LNX.4.58.0311291838150.1157@alienAngel.home.sk> <1070296349.28534.9.camel@stout.americas.sgi.com>
Sender: linux-xfs-bounce@xxxxxxxxxxx
On Mon, 1 Dec 2003, Eric Sandeen wrote:

Hi.

> > /dev/loop0              519488       144    519344   1% /mnt/mnt2
> > 
> > After test:
> > /dev/loop0              519488    131340    388148  26% /mnt/mnt2
> > 
> > And there wasn't any file on the disk. Was the space consumed by inode
> > table?
> 
> Yep, inodes are dynamically allocated as needed, so you're seeing them
> take up space.  Without ikeep, there was some new code to remove unused

...

> Note that the above situation (disk space used for inodes) is really no
> different than, say, ext3 - except that with ext3, you allocate all
> those inodes (and use the space) at mkfs time, not runtime.

Yes, I know. I was suprised how big is this percentage. But it seems ok for
me now. I haven't realized how small was the FS and how big was the number of
files created by bonnie.

Thanks.

                                jan



-- 


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