xfs
[Top] [All Lists]

Re: "This is a bug."

To: Brian Foster <bfoster@xxxxxxxxxx>
Subject: Re: "This is a bug."
From: Tapani Tarvainen <tapani.j.tarvainen@xxxxxx>
Date: Thu, 10 Sep 2015 21:03:39 +0300
Cc: xfs@xxxxxxxxxxx
Delivered-to: xfs@xxxxxxxxxxx
In-reply-to: <20150910175557.GE27863@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
References: <20150910134828.0bdfcc4c@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> <20150910115548.GD26847@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> <20150910123030.GG26847@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> <20150910123603.GA27863@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> <20150910125441.GA28374@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> <20150910130106.GB27863@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> <20150910130530.GB28374@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> <20150910145154.GC27863@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> <20150910173138.GB18940@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx> <20150910175557.GE27863@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
User-agent: Mutt/1.5.23 (2014-03-12)
On Thu, Sep 10, 2015 at 01:55:58PM -0400, Brian Foster (bfoster@xxxxxxxxxx) 
wrote:

> > > So that's a 6TB fs with over 24000 allocation groups of size 256MB, as
> > > opposed to the mkfs default of 6 allocation groups of 1TB each. Is that
> > > intentional?
> > 
> > Not to my knowledge. Unless I'm mistaken, the filesystem was created
> > while the machine was running Debian Squeeze, using whatever defaults
> > were back then.

> Strange... was the filesystem created small and then grown to a much
> larger size via xfs_growfs?

Almost certainly yes, although how small it initially was I'm not
sure.

-- 
Tapani Tarvainen

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