| To: | Timothy Shimmin <tes@xxxxxxx> |
|---|---|
| Subject: | Re: Default mount options (that suck less). |
| From: | James Braid <jamesb@xxxxxxxxxxxx> |
| Date: | Wed, 31 Oct 2007 11:05:09 +0000 |
| Cc: | xfs@xxxxxxxxxxx |
| In-reply-to: | <47267EC7.8000906@sgi.com> |
| References: | <20071029075657.GA84369978@melbourne.sgi.com> <4725FBB4.1010400@sandeen.net> <47267EC7.8000906@sgi.com> |
| Sender: | xfs-bounce@xxxxxxxxxxx |
On 30 Oct 2007, at 00:45, Timothy Shimmin wrote:
It might be interesting if people let us know what non-default mkfs and mount options that they are using for their various configurations/classes. Didn't Russell C. have some survey years ago - can't remember if that was for h/ware or what now. We have a ~100TB filesystem that was made with the default mkfs.xfs options from memory. The only mount option we use is inode64. |
| Previous by Date: | Re: Default mount options (that suck less)., Eric Sandeen |
|---|---|
| Next by Date: | Re: Default mount options (that suck less)., Justin Piszcz |
| Previous by Thread: | Re: Default mount options (that suck less)., Timothy Shimmin |
| Next by Thread: | Re: Default mount options (that suck less)., Justin Piszcz |
| Indexes: | [Date] [Thread] [Top] [All Lists] |