xfs
[Top] [All Lists]

Re: Big filesystem > (4TiB) recommendations (mkfs parameter tuning?)

To: Justin Piszcz <jpiszcz@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
Subject: Re: Big filesystem > (4TiB) recommendations (mkfs parameter tuning?)
From: Eric Sandeen <sandeen@xxxxxxxxxxx>
Date: Sun, 21 Dec 2008 15:03:01 -0600
Cc: xfs@xxxxxxxxxxx
In-reply-to: <alpine.DEB.1.10.0812211551170.24116@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
References: <alpine.DEB.1.10.0812211551170.24116@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
User-agent: Thunderbird 2.0.0.18 (Macintosh/20081105)
Justin Piszcz wrote:
> Often, on this list, there are issues where there is not enough memory, 
> etc, to repair a large filesystem.
> 
> If one is going to create a 10-16TiB filesystem (for example), should one 
> use the mkfs.xfs defaults, or should there be special tuning for 
> filesystems of this size, so they will be less susceptible to failure for 
> one reason or another?
> 
> Justin.

Memory to repair will depend more on total inodes on the system etc, not
so much the absolute size of the filesystem.

The defaults are defaults for a reason; they are updated when warranted,
and unless you have a specific issue with them, it's best to just stick
with that.

IOW, if best practices warranted different tuning for a generic 10-16TiB
filesystem, then the defaults would need to be updated, rather than
offering hints 'n' tips on mailing lists.  :)

-Eric

<Prev in Thread] Current Thread [Next in Thread>