| To: | xfs@xxxxxxxxxxx |
|---|---|
| Subject: | Insane file system overhead on large volume |
| From: | Manny <dermaniac@xxxxxxxxx> |
| Date: | Fri, 27 Jan 2012 08:50:38 +0100 |
| Dkim-signature: | v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=gamma; h=mime-version:date:message-id:subject:from:to:content-type; bh=SHGRrQlZpauNsCfmIneAeD2gGcMtCksWO0nSiB49id0=; b=pWoeSPnVmJ3JIA6WSjNmhVMBMg6B/oxTB7mFJbVv4KIrJEo53/2BF3mBsve6EV7Wso EpuINhw3a5ByAG+2g10o5gUilNnHyKvoSXqgaDru+d7Iyb9b7EfLctQ9WXYMBnZkfOnU RD4m+TfMKORy4mBRBwHT6gZBdAodAOzFoXq+4= |
Hi there, I'm not sure if this is intended behavior, but I was a bit stumped when I formatted a 30TB volume (12x3TB minus 2x3TB for parity in RAID 6) with XFS and noticed that there were only 22 TB left. I just called mkfs.xfs with default parameters - except for swith and sunit which match the RAID setup. Is it normal that I lost 8TB just for the file system? That's almost 30% of the volume. Should I set the block size higher? Or should I increase the number of allocation groups? Would that make a difference? Whats the preferred method for handling such large volumes? Thanks a lot, Manny |
| <Prev in Thread] | Current Thread | [Next in Thread> |
|---|---|---|
| ||
| Previous by Date: | [RFC PATCH] xfs: pass KM_SLEEP flag to kmem_realloc() in xlog_recover_add_to_cnt_trans(), Mitsuo Hayasaka |
|---|---|
| Next by Date: | Re: Insane file system overhead on large volume, Christoph Hellwig |
| Previous by Thread: | [RFC PATCH] xfs: pass KM_SLEEP flag to kmem_realloc() in xlog_recover_add_to_cnt_trans(), Mitsuo Hayasaka |
| Next by Thread: | Re: Insane file system overhead on large volume, Christoph Hellwig |
| Indexes: | [Date] [Thread] [Top] [All Lists] |