[Top] [All Lists]

Re: xfs mount/create options (was: XFS status update for August 2010)

To: xfs@xxxxxxxxxxx
Subject: Re: xfs mount/create options (was: XFS status update for August 2010)
From: Michael Monnerie <michael.monnerie@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
Date: Wed, 8 Sep 2010 07:38:54 +0200
In-reply-to: <201009060749.01405@xxxxxx>
Organization: it-management http://it-management.at
References: <20100902145959.GA27887@xxxxxxxxxxxxx> <20100905130809.GI705@dastard> <201009060749.01405@xxxxxx>
User-agent: KMail/1.12.4 (Linux/; KDE/4.3.5; x86_64; ; )
I just found that my questions from Monday were not solved, but this is 
interesting, so I want to warm it up again.

On Montag, 6. September 2010 Michael Monnerie wrote:
 I looked into man mkfs now, which brings up these questions:
 On Sonntag, 5. September 2010 Dave Chinner wrote:
 >         - relatime,logbufs=8,attr=2,barrier are all defaults.
 Why isn't logbsize=256k default, when it's suggested most of the time
 anyway? On machines with 32MiB or more 32k is the default, but most
 machines these days have multi-gigabytes of RAM, so at least for
 RAM>1GiB that could be made default.
 >         - largeio only affects stat(2) output if you have
 >           sunit/swidth set - unlikely on a laptop drive, and has
 >           no effect on unlink performance.
 >         - swalloc only affects allocation if sunit/swidth are set
 >           and has no effect on unlink performance.
 Hm, it seems I don't understand that. I tried now on different
  servers, using
 stat -f /disks/db --format '%s %S'
 4096 4096
 That filesystems were all created with su=64k,swidth=(values 4-8
 depending on RAID). So I retried specifying directly in the mount
 options: sunit=128,swidth=512
 and it still reports "4096" for %s - or is %s not the value I should
 look for? Some of the filesystems even have allocsize= specified,
  still always 4096 is given back. Where is my problem?
 And while I am at it: Why does "mount" not provide the su=/sw=
  options that we can use to create a filesystem? Would make life
  easier, as it's much easier to read su=64k,sw=7 than
 When I defined su/sw on mkfs, is it enough, or would I always have to
 specify sunit/swidth with every mount too?

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! ******

// 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>