xfs
[Top] [All Lists]

Re: [PATCH, RFC] default to inode64 on 64-bit systems

To: Christoph Hellwig <hch@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>
Subject: Re: [PATCH, RFC] default to inode64 on 64-bit systems
From: Olaf Weber <olaf@xxxxxxx>
Date: Tue, 07 Jul 2009 10:59:37 +0200
Cc: Eric Sandeen <sandeen@xxxxxxxxxxx>, xfs mailing list <xfs@xxxxxxxxxxx>
In-reply-to: <20090706184257.GA18107@xxxxxxxxxxxxx> (Christoph Hellwig's message of "Mon, 6 Jul 2009 14:42:57 -0400")
References: <4A52419E.5020301@xxxxxxxxxxx> <20090706184257.GA18107@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>
User-agent: Gnus/5.1007 (Gnus v5.10.7) XEmacs/21.4.3 (irix)
Christoph Hellwig writes:
> On Mon, Jul 06, 2009 at 01:25:34PM -0500, Eric Sandeen wrote:

>> I'm tiring of telling people to use the inode64 mount option
>> when they are experiencing bad performance on large xfs 
>> filesystems...
>> 
>> 32-bit userspace is still largely broken when it comes to still
>> using 32-bit stat calls, but on 64-bit systems this should be
>> safe.
>> 
>> The only problem here is moving the disk onto a 32-bit system, or using
>> 32-bit apps.  But I think it's a small risk.
>> 
>> What do we think about the following?

> Looks good to me, but it could use a comment in the code explaining why
> we do this.

Making inode64 the default on 64 bit systems seems like a good idea to
me.  But would it not be advisable to have a mount option that forces
the old behaviour, just in case?  Something like "broken32bituserspace"
(or maybe "inode32").

-- 
Olaf Weber                 SGI               Phone:  +31(0)30-6696752
                           Veldzigt 2b       Fax:    +31(0)30-6696799
Technical Lead             3454 PW de Meern  Vnet:   955-7151
Storage Software           The Netherlands   Email:  olaf@xxxxxxx

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