xfs
[Top] [All Lists]

Re: "This is a bug."

To: xfs@xxxxxxxxxxx
Subject: Re: "This is a bug."
From: Eric Sandeen <sandeen@xxxxxxxxxxx>
Date: Thu, 10 Sep 2015 19:12:39 -0500
Delivered-to: xfs@xxxxxxxxxxx
In-reply-to: <20150910180339.GB18739@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
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> <20150910180339.GB18739@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
User-agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Macintosh; Intel Mac OS X 10.10; rv:38.0) Gecko/20100101 Thunderbird/38.2.0
On 9/10/15 1:03 PM, Tapani Tarvainen wrote:
> 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.

Oof; with a default of 4 AGs that means that this filesystem was likely
grown from 1G to 6T.

Like Brian says, that is definitely not recommended.  ;)

-Eric

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