| To: | James Braid <jamesb@xxxxxxxxxxxx> |
|---|---|
| Subject: | Re: Default mount options (that suck less). |
| From: | Chris Wedgwood <cw@xxxxxxxx> |
| Date: | Wed, 31 Oct 2007 08:41:11 -0700 |
| Cc: | Timothy Shimmin <tes@xxxxxxx>, xfs@xxxxxxxxxxx |
| In-reply-to: | <177CA06B-41D3-4E4A-9EA6-5688C952CD63@loreland.org> |
| References: | <20071029075657.GA84369978@melbourne.sgi.com> <4725FBB4.1010400@sandeen.net> <47267EC7.8000906@sgi.com> <177CA06B-41D3-4E4A-9EA6-5688C952CD63@loreland.org> |
| Sender: | xfs-bounce@xxxxxxxxxxx |
On Wed, Oct 31, 2007 at 11:05:09AM +0000, James Braid wrote: > We have a ~100TB filesystem that was made with the default mkfs.xfs > options from memory. The only mount option we use is inode64. Weta? Mostly very large files? |
| Previous by Date: | Re: Default mount options (that suck less)., Eric Sandeen |
|---|---|
| Next by Date: | change in the value of XFS_TRANS_PUSH_AIL_RESTARTS, umesh deshpande |
| Previous by Thread: | Re: Default mount options (that suck less)., Eric Sandeen |
| Next by Thread: | Re: Default mount options (that suck less)., James Braid |
| Indexes: | [Date] [Thread] [Top] [All Lists] |