mkfs.xfs states log stripe unit is too large
Ingo Jürgensmann
ij at 2012.bluespice.org
Mon Jun 25 00:25:06 CDT 2012
On 2012-06-25 00:15, Stan Hoeppner wrote:
>> As I already wrote, I'm using Debian unstable, therefore distro
>> supplied mdadm. Otherwise I'd have said this.
> SID is the problem here, or I should say, the cause of the error
> message. SID is leading (better?) edge, and is obviously using a
> recent
> mdadm release, which defaults to metadata 1.2, and chunk of 512KB.
> As more distros adopt newer mdadm, reports of this will be more
> prevalent. So Eric's idea is likely preferable than mine. XFS
> making a
> recommendation against an md default would fly like a lead balloon...
Actually, even man page of Debian stable (Squeeze) mentions:
-c, --chunk=
Specify chunk size of kibibytes. The default when
creating an array is 512KB. To ensure
compatibility with earlier versions, the default when
Building and array with no persis‐
tent metadata is 64KB. This is only meaningful for
RAID0, RAID4, RAID5, RAID6, and
RAID10.
So, the question is: why did mdadm choose 1.2 format superblock this
time? My guess is, that's because of GPT labelled disks instead of MBR,
but it's only a guess. Maybe it's because the new md device is bigger in
size. All of my other md devices on MBR labelled disks do have 0.90
format superblock, all md devices on the GPT disks are of 1.2 format.
Although it doesn't seem a new default in mdadm for me, your assumption
would still stand if the cause would turn out to be the GPT label. More
and more people will start using GPT labelled disks.
>> I find it strange that you've misinterpreted citing the mdadm man
>> page as "sandbagging us". =:-O
> Sandbagging simply means holding something back, withholding
> information.
Are ok, I misread "sandboxing us" as "boxing onto us like at a
sandbox". So, my apologies here. :-)
--
Ciao... // Fon: 0381-2744150
. Ingo \X/ http://blog.windfluechter.net
gpg pubkey: http://www.juergensmann.de/ij_public_key.
More information about the xfs
mailing list