Re: [REVIEW] Don't make lazy counters default for mkfs

[Eric Sandeen <sandeen@xxxxxxxxxxx>]

Josef 'Jeff' Sipek wrote:
> On Sun, Mar 02, 2008 at 09:56:50PM -0600, Eric Sandeen wrote:
>> Josef 'Jeff' Sipek wrote:
>>> On Mon, Mar 03, 2008 at 11:30:14AM +1100, Mark Goodwin wrote:
>>> ...
>>>> Maybe I'm missing something, but if we export all the feature bits,
>>>> both new and old, then (a) an old mkfs will continue to ignore them,
>>>> and (b) future versions of mkfs will have all the information needed,
>>>> but will need t be smart about how that information is used.
>>> IMHO:
>>>
>>> 1) mkfs should make a filesystem, the defaults should be conservative (say
>>>    using features that have been around >1 year)
>> I suppose I have to agree, unfortunately that means most competetive
>> benchmarks will be using sub-optimal mkfs's, but...
>  
> Benchmarks that use default mkfs options on xfs, but non-default on other
> fs?

most benchmarks I see tune the heck out of "the home team" and leave the
rest ;)

> If you want, have a simple printf in mkfs that tells the user that he's not
> using the latest and greatest features (e.g., lazy-count); that should be
> enough to make it obvious that there're better options than the default.

eh, nobody reads that stuff :)

-Eric