Received:  by oss.sgi.com id <S42244AbQGXVOL>;
	Mon, 24 Jul 2000 14:14:11 -0700
Received: from deliverator.sgi.com ([204.94.214.10]:265 "EHLO
        deliverator.sgi.com") by oss.sgi.com with ESMTP id <S42242AbQGXVNr>;
	Mon, 24 Jul 2000 14:13:47 -0700
Received: from ledzep.cray.com (ledzep.cray.com [137.38.226.97]) by deliverator.sgi.com (980309.SGI.8.8.8-aspam-6.2/980310.SGI-aspam) via ESMTP id OAA00502
	for <linux-xfs@oss.sgi.com>; Mon, 24 Jul 2000 14:05:53 -0700 (PDT)
	mail_from (lord@sgi.com)
Received: from ironwood-e185.americas.sgi.com (ironwood.cray.com [128.162.185.212]) by ledzep.cray.com (SGI-SGI-8.9.3/craymail-smart-nospam1.0) with ESMTP id QAA33609; Mon, 24 Jul 2000 16:10:47 -0500 (CDT)
Received: from jen.americas.sgi.com (jen.americas.sgi.com [128.162.184.86]) by ironwood-e185.americas.sgi.com (8.8.4/Cray-ironwood-e1.6) with ESMTP id QAA22912; Mon, 24 Jul 2000 16:10:46 -0500 (CDT)
Received: from jen.americas.sgi.com by jen.americas.sgi.com (8.9.3/SGI-client.1.6) via ESMTP id QAA06406; Mon, 24 Jul 2000 16:03:49 -0500
Message-Id: <200007242103.QAA06406@jen.americas.sgi.com>
X-Mailer: exmh version 2.1.1 10/15/1999
To:     William L Jones <jones@tacc.cc.utexas.edu>
cc:     linux-xfs@oss.sgi.com
Subject: Re: xfs_mkfs 
In-Reply-To: Message from William L Jones <jones@tacc.cc.utexas.edu> 
   of "Mon, 24 Jul 2000 15:50:43 CDT." <200007242050.PAA13077@spica.cc.utexas.edu> 
Date:   Mon, 24 Jul 2000 16:03:49 -0500
From:   Steve Lord <lord@sgi.com>
Sender: owner-linux-xfs@oss.sgi.com
Precedence: bulk
Return-Path: <owner-linux-xfs@oss.sgi.com>
X-Orcpt: rfc822;linux-xfs-outgoing

> 
> Spoke too soon.  I just crated a file system the would produce diffrent probl
ems.
> 
> I noticed the irix defaults to version 1 directories.  A quick test on linux 
of a linux
> xfs file system with version 1 directories and a block size 512 indcates that
 this 
> may be a workable combination.
> 
> Has the xfs verion 2 directory code bee fully test?
> 
> Bill Jones

V2 directories are what we use exclusively internally - what is not tested
and known not to work about your setup is using a filesystem with a blocksize
other that the page size of the system (4 Kbytes). This is something which
is still being worked on internally, so for the moment, try to stick to the
default block size used by mkfs.

Steve