On Sun, Mar 02, 2008 at 09:56:50PM -0600, Eric Sandeen wrote:
> Josef 'Jeff' Sipek wrote:
> > On Mon, Mar 03, 2008 at 11:30:14AM +1100, Mark Goodwin wrote:
> > ...
> >> Maybe I'm missing something, but if we export all the feature bits,
> >> both new and old, then (a) an old mkfs will continue to ignore them,
> >> and (b) future versions of mkfs will have all the information needed,
> >> but will need t be smart about how that information is used.
> > IMHO:
> > 1) mkfs should make a filesystem, the defaults should be conservative (say
> > using features that have been around >1 year)
> I suppose I have to agree, unfortunately that means most competetive
> benchmarks will be using sub-optimal mkfs's, but...
Benchmarks that use default mkfs options on xfs, but non-default on other
If you want, have a simple printf in mkfs that tells the user that he's not
using the latest and greatest features (e.g., lazy-count); that should be
enough to make it obvious that there're better options than the default.
> It's not like we're running mkfs.ext3 here... ;) mkfs; mount will tell
> you quickly if there's a problem, won't it. Adding complexity to mkfs
> might not make a lot of sense.
Josef 'Jeff' Sipek.
I already backed up the [server] once, I can do it again.
- a sysadmin threatening to do more frequent backups