| To: | Jan-Frode Myklebust <janfrode@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> |
|---|---|
| Subject: | Re: another XFS+LVM+SoftwareRAID5 query |
| From: | Steve Lord <lord@xxxxxxx> |
| Date: | Wed, 21 Jul 2004 16:36:42 -0500 |
| Cc: | linux-xfs@xxxxxxxxxxx, Charles Steinkuehler <charles@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> |
| In-reply-to: | <20040721212921.GB28273@xxxxxxxxx> |
| References: | <20040721212921.GB28273@xxxxxxxxx> |
| Sender: | linux-xfs-bounce@xxxxxxxxxxx |
| User-agent: | Mozilla Thunderbird 0.7.1 (X11/20040626) |
Jan-Frode Myklebust wrote: And, what consequence does the increased sector size have on the fs? There are some chunks of metadata at the start of each allocation group which where originally layed out as being 512 bytes long. The superblock and some headers for allocation structures. The log is also written in sector sized chunks (or multiples thereof). All the rest of the metadata and file data is in filesystem block sized chunks. Bumping the sector size rounds these up to a larger size, the change in disk space usage is tiny. The reason xfs uses two different sizes is that otherwise all I/O would have had to be submitted in 512 byte chunks and the overhead is horrible. Steve |
| <Prev in Thread] | Current Thread | [Next in Thread> |
|---|---|---|
| ||
| Previous by Date: | another XFS+LVM+SoftwareRAID5 query, Jan-Frode Myklebust |
|---|---|
| Next by Date: | [Bug 347] XFS clearing the disk, bugzilla-daemon |
| Previous by Thread: | another XFS+LVM+SoftwareRAID5 query, Jan-Frode Myklebust |
| Next by Thread: | Re: another XFS+LVM+SoftwareRAID5 query, Charles Steinkuehler |
| Indexes: | [Date] [Thread] [Top] [All Lists] |