xfs
[Top] [All Lists]

Re: Weird behaviour of mkfs.xfs

To: Christoph Hellwig <hch@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>
Subject: Re: Weird behaviour of mkfs.xfs
From: Emmanuel Florac <eflorac@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
Date: Mon, 28 Mar 2016 17:18:16 +0200
Cc: "xfs@xxxxxxxxxxx" <xfs@xxxxxxxxxxx>
Delivered-to: xfs@xxxxxxxxxxx
In-reply-to: <20160326163642.GA19464@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>
Organization: Intellique
References: <20160326145037.3b5c6302@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> <20160326154619.3649ebdf@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> <20160326163642.GA19464@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>
Le Sat, 26 Mar 2016 09:36:42 -0700
Christoph Hellwig <hch@xxxxxxxxxxxxx> Ãcrivait:

> On Sat, Mar 26, 2016 at 03:46:19PM +0100, Emmanuel Florac wrote:
> > Actually I was too impatient; it finally ended avec 30 minutes of
> > burning bits to the flash. I don't understand the behaviour, though.
> > I'm used to mkfs.xfs making its magic extremely quickly, even on
> > humongous devices. Here it's a very fast array of only 3.2 TB...  
> 
> Trey doing a mkfs.xfs -K, without that it diascards the whole device.
> I've seen some NVMe device misbehaving under discard storms, up to
> the point of resetting the controller..

Ah, the discard is a nice touch, good to know :) It doesn't seem to be
mentioned in the man  page (except for the -K option), it would be a
good information to know.

-- 
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Emmanuel Florac     |   Direction technique
                    |   Intellique
                    |   <eflorac@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
                    |   +33 1 78 94 84 02
------------------------------------------------------------------------

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