| To: | xfs@xxxxxxxxxxx |
|---|---|
| Subject: | Re: "This is a bug." |
| From: | Eric Sandeen <sandeen@xxxxxxxxxxx> |
| Date: | Thu, 10 Sep 2015 19:12:39 -0500 |
| Delivered-to: | xfs@xxxxxxxxxxx |
| In-reply-to: | <20150910180339.GB18739@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx> |
| References: | <20150910134828.0bdfcc4c@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> <20150910115548.GD26847@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> <20150910123030.GG26847@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> <20150910123603.GA27863@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> <20150910125441.GA28374@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> <20150910130106.GB27863@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> <20150910130530.GB28374@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> <20150910145154.GC27863@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> <20150910173138.GB18940@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx> <20150910175557.GE27863@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> <20150910180339.GB18739@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx> |
| User-agent: | Mozilla/5.0 (Macintosh; Intel Mac OS X 10.10; rv:38.0) Gecko/20100101 Thunderbird/38.2.0 |
On 9/10/15 1:03 PM, Tapani Tarvainen wrote: > On Thu, Sep 10, 2015 at 01:55:58PM -0400, Brian Foster (bfoster@xxxxxxxxxx) > wrote: > >>>> So that's a 6TB fs with over 24000 allocation groups of size 256MB, as >>>> opposed to the mkfs default of 6 allocation groups of 1TB each. Is that >>>> intentional? >>> >>> Not to my knowledge. Unless I'm mistaken, the filesystem was created >>> while the machine was running Debian Squeeze, using whatever defaults >>> were back then. > >> Strange... was the filesystem created small and then grown to a much >> larger size via xfs_growfs? > > Almost certainly yes, although how small it initially was I'm not > sure. Oof; with a default of 4 AGs that means that this filesystem was likely grown from 1G to 6T. Like Brian says, that is definitely not recommended. ;) -Eric |
| <Prev in Thread] | Current Thread | [Next in Thread> |
|---|---|---|
| ||
| Previous by Date: | Re: "This is a bug.", Brian Foster |
|---|---|
| Next by Date: | Processing of xfsprogs_4.2.0_amd64.changes, Debian FTP Masters |
| Previous by Thread: | Re: "This is a bug.", Tapani Tarvainen |
| Next by Thread: | Curriculum Vitae, IVAN |
| Indexes: | [Date] [Thread] [Top] [All Lists] |