xfs
[Top] [All Lists]
<prev [Date] next>
[Advanced]
 <prev [Thread] next>

Re: Default mount options (that suck less).

from [nscott] [Permanent Link][Original]
To: "Niv Sardi" <xaiki@xxxxxxx>, "David Chinner" <dgc@xxxxxxx>
Subject: Re: Default mount options (that suck less).
From: nscott@xxxxxxxxxx
Date: Mon, 29 Oct 2007 21:44:01 +1100 (EST)
Cc: xfs@xxxxxxxxxxx
Importance: Normal
In-reply-to: <20071029085502.GI995458@xxxxxxx>
References: <20071029075657.GA84369978@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> <20071029085502.GI995458@xxxxxxx>
Sender: xfs-bounce@xxxxxxxxxxx
User-agent: SquirrelMail/1.4.8-4.el4.centos 
> On Mon, Oct 29, 2007 at 06:56:57PM +1100, Niv Sardi wrote:
>> Hello,
>>
>> XFS's default mount options are in most cases sub-optimal, we should try
>
> Mkfs options ;)
>
>> to have more sensible defaults, so far I'm following some quick
>> dave-powered
>> recomendations:
>>
>> - version 2 logs
>> - attr2
>> - lazy superblock counters
>> - less allocation groups for single disk configs
>

Version 2 inodes should always be created by default (there are both
userspace and kernel changes required for that).

cheers.

--
Nathan
[More with this subject...]
<Prev in Thread] Current Thread [Next in Thread>
Previous by Date:  Crash with XFS on top of DRBD (DRBD 8.0.6 svn / Kernel 2.6.22), Laurent Caron
Next by Date:  Re: Default mount options (that suck less)., Eric Sandeen
Previous by Thread:  Re: Default mount options (that suck less)., David Chinner
Next by Thread:  Re: Default mount options (that suck less)., Eric Sandeen
Indexes:  [Date] [Thread] [Top] [All Lists]