| To: | Eric Sandeen <sandeen@xxxxxxx> |
|---|---|
| Subject: | Re: Linux 2.4.22 XFS 1.3.1 reservation ran out |
| From: | Jan Derfinak <ja@xxxxxxxxxxxx> |
| Date: | Mon, 1 Dec 2003 17:56:49 +0100 (CET) |
| Cc: | linux-xfs@xxxxxxxxxxx |
| In-reply-to: | <1070296349.28534.9.camel@stout.americas.sgi.com> |
| References: | <Pine.LNX.4.44.0310270844480.9654-100000@stout.americas.sgi.com> <3FC6E5C4.2080009@cse.iitb.ac.in> <20031129085715.A1872948@wobbly.melbourne.sgi.com> <Pine.LNX.4.58.0311291838150.1157@alienAngel.home.sk> <1070296349.28534.9.camel@stout.americas.sgi.com> |
| Sender: | linux-xfs-bounce@xxxxxxxxxxx |
On Mon, 1 Dec 2003, Eric Sandeen wrote:
Hi.
> > /dev/loop0 519488 144 519344 1% /mnt/mnt2
> >
> > After test:
> > /dev/loop0 519488 131340 388148 26% /mnt/mnt2
> >
> > And there wasn't any file on the disk. Was the space consumed by inode
> > table?
>
> Yep, inodes are dynamically allocated as needed, so you're seeing them
> take up space. Without ikeep, there was some new code to remove unused
...
> Note that the above situation (disk space used for inodes) is really no
> different than, say, ext3 - except that with ext3, you allocate all
> those inodes (and use the space) at mkfs time, not runtime.
Yes, I know. I was suprised how big is this percentage. But it seems ok for
me now. I haven't realized how small was the FS and how big was the number of
files created by bonnie.
Thanks.
jan
--
|
| <Prev in Thread] | Current Thread | [Next in Thread> |
|---|---|---|
| ||
| Previous by Date: | Re: Linux 2.4.22 XFS 1.3.1 reservation ran out, Eric Sandeen |
|---|---|
| Next by Date: | [patch] security. namespace, Chris PeBenito |
| Previous by Thread: | Re: Linux 2.4.22 XFS 1.3.1 reservation ran out, Eric Sandeen |
| Next by Thread: | Re: xlog_clear_stale_blocks crashes in line 1242 (suse 9), Eric Sandeen |
| Indexes: | [Date] [Thread] [Top] [All Lists] |