| To: | Steve Lord <lord@xxxxxxx> |
|---|---|
| Subject: | Re: what mkfs.xfs options to use with dealing with many small files. |
| From: | Eric Sandeen <sandeen@xxxxxxx> |
| Date: | 23 Oct 2003 11:24:28 -0500 |
| Cc: | Greg Whynott <greg@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>, linux-xfs@xxxxxxxxxxx |
| In-reply-to: | <1066925583.21480.71.camel@jen.americas.sgi.com> |
| Organization: | |
| References: | <3F97F016.4AB1E881@calibredigital.com> <1066925583.21480.71.camel@jen.americas.sgi.com> |
| Sender: | linux-xfs-bounce@xxxxxxxxxxx |
On Thu, 2003-10-23 at 11:13, Steve Lord wrote: > > mkfs.xfs -f -b size=2048k -d agcount=16 /dev/md0 > > -b size specifies the basic block size of the filesystem, it is > in bytes, I do not think 2048k is going to work. Why choose 2K? > If you are going to switch from the default of 512 then the best > bet is 4096. Not quite, -b is the filesystem block size, not the device sector size, right? 4k default, page-sized max, 512 minimum. If you're worried about wasted space on small files, smaller -b might make sense, at the expense of a slightly more complex code path, I think. -Eric -- Eric Sandeen [C]XFS for Linux http://oss.sgi.com/projects/xfs sandeen@xxxxxxx SGI, Inc. 651-683-3102 |
| <Prev in Thread] | Current Thread | [Next in Thread> |
|---|---|---|
| ||
| Previous by Date: | Interesting problem with XFS and NFS... (or just NFS?), Michael Sinz |
|---|---|
| Next by Date: | Re: what mkfs.xfs options to use with dealing with many small files., Steve Lord |
| Previous by Thread: | Re: what mkfs.xfs options to use with dealing with many small files., Steve Lord |
| Next by Thread: | Re: what mkfs.xfs options to use with dealing with many small files., Steve Lord |
| Indexes: | [Date] [Thread] [Top] [All Lists] |