xfs
[Top] [All Lists]

Re: mkfs.xfs questions

To: Iustin Pop <iusty@xxxxxxxxx>
Subject: Re: mkfs.xfs questions
From: Christian Kujau <christian@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
Date: Tue, 5 Dec 2006 17:46:15 +0000 (GMT)
Cc: xfs@xxxxxxxxxxx, jasmin@xxxxxxxxxxx
In-reply-to: <20061202111546.GA18661@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
References: <20061129174553.e0ef3465.jasmin@xxxxxxxxxxx> <Pine.LNX.4.64.0612010410530.3735@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> <20061201183034.GA20595@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> <Pine.LNX.4.64.0612012349020.3735@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> <20061202111546.GA18661@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
Sender: xfs-bounce@xxxxxxxxxxx
On Sat, 2 Dec 2006, Iustin Pop wrote:
Hmm, I am pretty sure that it makes a difference, but only from personal
experience, not from benchmarks. A while ago, mkfs.xfs used to make <8M
logs even for big filesystems[0]. Nowadays it chooses a more sane value.

I could not stand my own curiosity, so here it is: http://nerdbynature.de/wp/?cat=4

I think I'll repeat the benchmarks with bigger test sizes. The testscript can easily be adjusted to test more options/values.

Christian.
--
BOFH excuse #248:

Too much radiation coming from the soil.


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