| To: | Manny <dermaniac@xxxxxxxxx> |
|---|---|
| Subject: | Re: Insane file system overhead on large volume |
| From: | Christoph Hellwig <hch@xxxxxxxxxxxxx> |
| Date: | Fri, 27 Jan 2012 05:44:13 -0500 |
| Cc: | xfs@xxxxxxxxxxx |
| In-reply-to: | <CAEBWcAT2zfDskgDjFr0KcnfsT2A65r04AM1cv2-TfnNJTB1__Q@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx> |
| References: | <CAEBWcAT2zfDskgDjFr0KcnfsT2A65r04AM1cv2-TfnNJTB1__Q@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx> |
| User-agent: | Mutt/1.5.21 (2010-09-15) |
On Fri, Jan 27, 2012 at 08:50:38AM +0100, Manny wrote: > 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? Where did you get the sizes for the raw volume and the filesystem usage from? |
| <Prev in Thread] | Current Thread | [Next in Thread> |
|---|---|---|
| ||
| Previous by Date: | Insane file system overhead on large volume, Manny |
|---|---|
| Next by Date: | Re: [RFC PATCH] xfs: pass KM_SLEEP flag to kmem_realloc() in xlog_recover_add_to_cnt_trans(), Christoph Hellwig |
| Previous by Thread: | Insane file system overhead on large volume, Manny |
| Next by Thread: | Re: Insane file system overhead on large volume, Manny |
| Indexes: | [Date] [Thread] [Top] [All Lists] |