Search String: Display: Description: Sort:

Results:

References: [ +subject:/^(?:^\s*(re|sv|fwd|fw)[\[\]\d]*[:>-]+\s*)*Default\s+mount\s+options\s+\(that\s+suck\s+less\)\.\s*$/: 58 ]

Total 58 documents matching your query.

1. Re: Default mount options (that suck less). (score: 1)
Author: Niv Sardi <xaiki@xxxxxxx>
Date: Mon, 12 Nov 2007 13:28:06 +1100
No gnus is bad news ? Shall I interpret the lack of comments as "everything is fine, just commit the damn thing ?" Cheers, -- Niv
/archives/xfs/2007-11/msg00101.html (7,185 bytes)

2. Re: Default mount options (that suck less). (score: 1)
Author: David Chinner <dgc@xxxxxxx>
Date: Mon, 12 Nov 2007 14:10:49 +1100
Lack of comments to what? I haven't seen whatever patches you've sent which means wither you didn't tag the email as "[PATCH N/M]..." or "[REVIEW]..." and I didn't notice the attachments (nope, I see
/archives/xfs/2007-11/msg00103.html (8,126 bytes)

3. Re: Default mount options (that suck less). (score: 1)
Author:
Date: Mon, 12 Nov 2007 13:28:06 +1100
No gnus is bad news ? Shall I interpret the lack of comments as "everything is fine, just commit the damn thing ?" Cheers, -- Niv
/archives/xfs/2007-11/msg00417.html (7,185 bytes)

4. Re: Default mount options (that suck less). (score: 1)
Author:
Date: Mon, 12 Nov 2007 14:10:49 +1100
Lack of comments to what? I haven't seen whatever patches you've sent which means wither you didn't tag the email as "[PATCH N/M]..." or "[REVIEW]..." and I didn't notice the attachments (nope, I see
/archives/xfs/2007-11/msg00419.html (8,126 bytes)

5. Default mount options (that suck less). (score: 1)
Author:
Date: Mon, 29 Oct 2007 18:56:57 +1100
XFS's default mount options are in most cases sub-optimal, we should try to have more sensible defaults, so far I'm following some quick dave-powered recomendations: - version 2 logs - attr2 - lazy
/archives/xfs/2007-10/msg00259.html (8,204 bytes)

6. Re: Default mount options (that suck less). (score: 1)
Author:
Date: Mon, 29 Oct 2007 19:55:02 +1100
Mkfs options ;) Given that 25% on a 4GB filesystem will allow about 5million inodes, I think it's probably reasonable to bring it down to 5% by the time we pass 1TB and 1% by 50TB..... Cheers, Dave.
/archives/xfs/2007-10/msg00260.html (9,243 bytes)

7. Re: Default mount options (that suck less). (score: 1)
Author:
Date: Mon, 29 Oct 2007 21:44:01 +1100 (EST)
Version 2 inodes should always be created by default (there are both userspace and kernel changes required for that). cheers. -- Nathan
/archives/xfs/2007-10/msg00262.html (9,652 bytes)

8. Re: Default mount options (that suck less). (score: 1)
Author:
Date: Mon, 29 Oct 2007 09:03:57 -0500
FWIW any anaconda-installed xfs filesystems have been using attr2 since FC6, and after the initial pain, I haven't heard any reports of problems. larger logbuf count/size seems to be the other tuning
/archives/xfs/2007-10/msg00263.html (9,913 bytes)

9. Re: Default mount options (that suck less). (score: 1)
Author:
Date: Mon, 29 Oct 2007 09:01:52 -0500
But what does this affect? It's a cap, but it doesn't affect allocation policy or anything does it? What's the downside to 25%? -Eric
/archives/xfs/2007-10/msg00264.html (9,950 bytes)

10. Re: Default mount options (that suck less). (score: 1)
Author:
Date: Mon, 29 Oct 2007 16:05:36 +0100
On 29.10.2007 15:03, Eric Sandeen wrote: Niv Sardi wrote: XFS's default mount options are in most cases sub-optimal, we should try to have more sensible defaults, so far I'm following some quick dave
/archives/xfs/2007-10/msg00265.html (10,200 bytes)

11. Re: Default mount options (that suck less). (score: 1)
Author:
Date: Mon, 29 Oct 2007 10:07:30 -0500
attr2 should help with the problem now... unless there is some common case where attr2+256 still spills out a lot? -Eric
/archives/xfs/2007-10/msg00266.html (10,276 bytes)

12. Re: Default mount options (that suck less). (score: 1)
Author:
Date: Mon, 29 Oct 2007 10:26:44 -0500
Sorry for all the replies ;-) What would you think of a mkfs conf file like e2fsprogs has, which defines filesystem classes, and defaults for each? (small, news, largefile, etc...) -Eric
/archives/xfs/2007-10/msg00267.html (10,585 bytes)

13. Re: Default mount options (that suck less). (score: 1)
Author:
Date: Mon, 29 Oct 2007 08:44:56 -0700
That makes more sense for ext2/3 where some meta-data isn't dynamically allocated as needed, for example, historically nntp servers used one file per article and would often run out of inodes.
/archives/xfs/2007-10/msg00268.html (10,171 bytes)

14. Re: Default mount options (that suck less). (score: 1)
Author:
Date: Mon, 29 Oct 2007 10:51:04 -0500
well, anything that is fixed at mkfs time could use this... inode size, ag count, etc. If there are common use cases which would want different mkfs-fixed defaults, it might make sense. -Eric
/archives/xfs/2007-10/msg00269.html (10,764 bytes)

15. Re: Default mount options (that suck less). (score: 1)
Author:
Date: Tue, 30 Oct 2007 08:05:53 +1100
Well, we already default to 8 logbufs, and 256k log buffers are not a win in a lot of situations. The log buffer size is a mount option, so it's much easier to tweak once we default to v2 logs... Che
/archives/xfs/2007-10/msg00272.html (10,416 bytes)

16. Re: Default mount options (that suck less). (score: 1)
Author:
Date: Tue, 30 Oct 2007 08:26:49 +1100
It reserves allocation groups as "metadata only" for inode32 filesystems so data doesn't get placed in them untill all other space is full. So at 1TB, we don't use 25% of the filesystem until the oth
/archives/xfs/2007-10/msg00274.html (11,153 bytes)

17. Re: Default mount options (that suck less). (score: 1)
Author:
Date: Tue, 30 Oct 2007 10:48:43 +1100
Another one for you - make the log larger. The kernel code supports a log of up to 2GB, so mkfs could making a larger log without requiring changes elsewhere. Cheers, Dave. -- Dave Chinner Principal
/archives/xfs/2007-10/msg00286.html (9,884 bytes)

18. Re: Default mount options (that suck less). (score: 1)
Author:
Date: Tue, 30 Oct 2007 11:45:59 +1100
Eric Sandeen wrote: Niv Sardi wrote: Hello, XFS's default mount options are in most cases sub-optimal, we should try to have more sensible defaults, so far I'm following some quick dave-powered recom
/archives/xfs/2007-10/msg00289.html (11,582 bytes)

19. Re: Default mount options (that suck less). (score: 1)
Author:
Date: Tue, 30 Oct 2007 19:40:05 +1100
Probably SELinux+Beagle attributes? Attribute "Beagle.Fingerprint" has a 25 byte value Attribute "Beagle.Uid" has a 22 byte value Attribute "Beagle.MTime" has a 14 byte value Attribute "Beagle.Filter
/archives/xfs/2007-10/msg00303.html (11,463 bytes)

20. Re: Default mount options (that suck less). (score: 1)
Author:
Date: Wed, 31 Oct 2007 15:11:45 +1100
and another ~70 bytes for the names. -- Nathan
/archives/xfs/2007-10/msg00304.html (10,984 bytes)


This search system is powered by Namazu