xfs
[Top] [All Lists]

Re: XFS status update for August 2010

To: xfs@xxxxxxxxxxx
Subject: Re: XFS status update for August 2010
From: Michael Monnerie <michael.monnerie@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
Date: Mon, 6 Sep 2010 07:10:10 +0200
In-reply-to: <4C845E71.20902@xxxxxxxxxxx>
Organization: it-management http://it-management.at
References: <20100902145959.GA27887@xxxxxxxxxxxxx> <201009051137.07678@xxxxxx> <4C845E71.20902@xxxxxxxxxxx>
User-agent: KMail/1.12.4 (Linux/2.6.35.4-zmi; KDE/4.3.5; x86_64; ; )
On Montag, 6. September 2010 Eric Sandeen wrote:
> People need to read up a little and know what they're tuning;
> repeating this kind of suggestion leads to cargo-cultism for
> performance "tuning"
> 
> IOW don't turn knobs just because they are there ... :)

Other than most who write here I'm not a developer, but a sysadmin, 
responsible for servers of all kind of ages, with XFS usage back to the 
early 2.6 series. Default mount options use to change sometimes, and I 
can't always check that after a system/kernel upgrade the default 
options are satisfied or not. So specifying everything is safe, and 
doesn't do any harm - right?
And as it was Sunday morning, I wanted to help out Willy quickly, 
without looking specifically which options he would need. I was sure 
some of you who know it would guide him later, but maybe only on Monday, 
so I took that quick path to find a solution.

-- 
mit freundlichen Grüssen,
Michael Monnerie, Ing. BSc

it-management Internet Services
http://proteger.at [gesprochen: Prot-e-schee]
Tel: 0660 / 415 65 31

****** Aktuelles Radiointerview! ******
http://www.it-podcast.at/aktuelle-sendung.html

// Wir haben im Moment zwei Häuser zu verkaufen:
// http://zmi.at/langegg/
// http://zmi.at/haus2009/

Attachment: signature.asc
Description: This is a digitally signed message part.

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