Nathan Scott wrote:
>
> hi,
>
> On Thu, Aug 09, 2001 at 02:37:22AM +0000, Detlef Vollmann wrote:
> > On writing a small testsuite for a simple utility, I hit
> > several problems with mkfs.xfs (1.2.0):
> >
> > Minor problem: syntax
> > mkfs.xfs does not conform to the mkfs syntax (at least not to
> > the one described in mkfs(8) on Linux and which I know since
> > more than 15 years now :-}
> > mkfs -t xfs /dev/xxx 1234
> > produces just an error message on the size parameter :-(
> >
>
> Hmm... yes, you're right. If it's a problem, send a patch.
Probably I should. Perhaps later.
> > Bigger problem: semantics
> > In the native mkfs.xfs option list, I found nothing that resembles
> > the size parameter of the original mkfs command. I had to do
> > some computations and give size parameters for the different
> > parts (data and logging).
>
> You're after the -d size=XXXb option, which I think would most
> closely match the optional [blocks] parameter of mkfs.
If I read the manpage correctly, that filesystem would not
fit into a device with size xxxb, as the log is still added.
>
> >
> > Real problem: size itself
> > I tried to create an xfs filesystem on a 4MB ramdisk (/dev/ram0),
> > but I found no combination of option that succeeded.
> > Did I not try hard enouh or is the lower limit for xfs size
> > larger than 4MB?
> >
>
> Yes - the minimum is 16MB, if I remember correctly (ie. the
> minimum size of one allocation group).
Ahh, that's serious. I'll have to find a workaround for that :-{
Thanks for the info.
Detlef
--
Detlef Vollmann
vollmann engineering gmbh Tel: +41-41-4120911
P.O. Box 5106 Fax: +41-41-4120912
CH-6000 Luzern 5 / Switzerland eMail: dv@xxxxxxxxxxx
|