| To: | Chris Wedgwood <cw@xxxxxxxx> |
|---|---|
| Subject: | Re: Default mount options (that suck less). |
| From: | James Braid <jamesb@xxxxxxxxxxxx> |
| Date: | Thu, 1 Nov 2007 00:32:20 +0000 |
| Cc: | xfs@xxxxxxxxxxx |
| In-reply-to: | <20071031154111.GA14956@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> |
| References: | <20071029075657.GA84369978@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> <4725FBB4.1010400@xxxxxxxxxxx> <47267EC7.8000906@xxxxxxx> <177CA06B-41D3-4E4A-9EA6-5688C952CD63@xxxxxxxxxxxx> <20071031154111.GA14956@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> |
| Sender: | xfs-bounce@xxxxxxxxxxx |
On 31 Oct 2007, at 15:41, Chris Wedgwood wrote: 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? Not weta, but another big vfx companyThis particular filesystem is used for nearline backups from a bunch of NFS servers (which run XFS as well - we love XFS). The average file size is only about a megabyte. |
| Previous by Date: | Re: Default mount options (that suck less)., Niv Sardi |
|---|---|
| Next by Date: | Re: Default mount options (that suck less)., James Braid |
| Previous by Thread: | Re: Default mount options (that suck less)., Chris Wedgwood |
| Next by Thread: | Re: Default mount options (that suck less)., David Chinner |
| Indexes: | [Date] [Thread] [Top] [All Lists] |