| To: | James Braid <jamesb@xxxxxxxxxxxx> |
|---|---|
| Subject: | Re: Default mount options (that suck less). |
| From: | Justin Piszcz <jpiszcz@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> |
| Date: | Wed, 31 Oct 2007 07:27:27 -0400 (EDT) |
| Cc: | Timothy Shimmin <tes@xxxxxxx>, xfs@xxxxxxxxxxx |
| In-reply-to: | <177CA06B-41D3-4E4A-9EA6-5688C952CD63@xxxxxxxxxxxx> |
| References: | <20071029075657.GA84369978@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> <4725FBB4.1010400@xxxxxxxxxxx> <47267EC7.8000906@xxxxxxx> <177CA06B-41D3-4E4A-9EA6-5688C952CD63@xxxxxxxxxxxx> |
| Sender: | xfs-bounce@xxxxxxxxxxx |
On Wed, 31 Oct 2007, James Braid wrote: On 30 Oct 2007, at 00:45, Timothy Shimmin wrote:It might be interesting if people let us know what non-default mkfs and mount options that they are using for their various configurations/classes. Didn't Russell C. have some survey years ago - can't remember if that was for h/ware or what now.We have a ~100TB filesystem that was made with the default mkfs.xfs options from memory. The only mount option we use is inode64. Impressive, what architecture do you run? ia64 or x86_64? What performance differences did you see? Justin. |
| Previous by Date: | Re: Default mount options (that suck less)., James Braid |
|---|---|
| Next by Date: | Re: Default mount options (that suck less)., Eric Sandeen |
| Previous by Thread: | Re: Default mount options (that suck less)., James Braid |
| Next by Thread: | Re: Default mount options (that suck less)., James Braid |
| Indexes: | [Date] [Thread] [Top] [All Lists] |