On 24.09.2004 06:41, Nathan Scott wrote:
> On Thu, Sep 23, 2004 at 10:06:56AM +0200, Matthias Schniedermeyer wrote:
> >
> > For me mkfs.xfs ALWAYS uses a too low agcount, with a too low agcount a
> > single aggregategroup can be lager than 4GB which i was told is a "no no".
>
> Eh? Who told you that? Its not correct at all.
It was at some time correct. Because i had the problem that i couldn't
create DVD-Images on a 100GB XFS-Partition with the default agcount=16
with which the partition was created, when i created it first time
without specifying ANY additional parameter to mkfs.xfs. (It was
somehwhere last year. Maybe it was the fix(and thus the time) meantioned
in the other mail)
> > Do a xfs_info on your device and if (agsize * sectsz) > 4GB (or
> > "Capacity / agcount" > 4GB) then you have to reformat with a bigger
> > agcount/lower agsize.
>
> Thats not right either. There are big advantages to moving to
> allocation groups larger than 4G. Use the mkfs defaults here,
> unless you really know what you're doing.
It seems the problem got fixed the way that there now can be larger
allocation groups, whereas i thought that mkfs program got fixed and the
4GB limit was system immanent.
Seems i was wrong with this and i didn't need to manually raise the
agcount (again) when i swaped my 100GB HDDs with 200GB HDDs and mkfs.xfs
still used agcount=16 when i formated the 200GB HDDs.
(I immediatly did another mkfs.xfs when i saw that agcount was so small.
I didn't test it as the last time (last year when i first had that
problem) the agcount was so small it killed my machine the moment a
DVD-Image was "big enough")
Bis denn
--
Real Programmers consider "what you see is what you get" to be just as
bad a concept in Text Editors as it is in women. No, the Real Programmer
wants a "you asked for it, you got it" text editor -- complicated,
cryptic, powerful, unforgiving, dangerous.
|