| To: | David Chinner <dgc@xxxxxxx> |
|---|---|
| Subject: | Re: Default mount options (that suck less). |
| From: | Eric Sandeen <sandeen@xxxxxxxxxxx> |
| Date: | Mon, 29 Oct 2007 09:01:52 -0500 |
| Cc: | Niv Sardi <xaiki@xxxxxxx>, xfs@xxxxxxxxxxx |
| In-reply-to: | <20071029085502.GI995458@sgi.com> |
| References: | <20071029075657.GA84369978@melbourne.sgi.com> <20071029085502.GI995458@sgi.com> |
| Sender: | xfs-bounce@xxxxxxxxxxx |
| User-agent: | Thunderbird 2.0.0.6 (Macintosh/20070728) |
David Chinner wrote: > On Mon, Oct 29, 2007 at 06:56:57PM +1100, Niv Sardi wrote: >> Hello, >> >> XFS's default mount options are in most cases sub-optimal, we should try > > Mkfs options ;) > >> to have more sensible defaults, so far I'm following some quick dave-powered >> recomendations: >> >> - version 2 logs >> - attr2 >> - lazy superblock counters >> - less allocation groups for single disk configs >> >> - imaxpct default can be reduced >> >> it is currently 25, what would be reasonable ? > > Given that 25% on a 4GB filesystem will allow about 5million inodes, > I think it's probably reasonable to bring it down to 5% by the time we > pass 1TB and 1% by 50TB..... But what does this affect? It's a cap, but it doesn't affect allocation policy or anything does it? What's the downside to 25%? -Eric |
| <Prev in Thread] | Current Thread | [Next in Thread> |
|---|---|---|
| ||
| Previous by Date: | Re: Default mount options (that suck less)., nscott |
|---|---|
| Next by Date: | Re: Default mount options (that suck less)., Eric Sandeen |
| Previous by Thread: | Re: Default mount options (that suck less)., nscott |
| Next by Thread: | Re: Default mount options (that suck less)., David Chinner |
| Indexes: | [Date] [Thread] [Top] [All Lists] |