From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Wido den Hollander Subject: inode64 mount option for XFS Date: Mon, 03 Nov 2014 13:28:42 +0100 Message-ID: <545774FA.2070102@42on.com> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Return-path: Received: from websrv.42on.com ([31.25.102.167]:37367 "EHLO websrv.42on.com" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1751557AbaKCM2s (ORCPT ); Mon, 3 Nov 2014 07:28:48 -0500 Received: from [10.100.7.32] (a83-160-116-36.adsl.xs4all.nl [83.160.116.36]) by websrv.42on.com (Postfix) with ESMTPSA id 1B5D8BF46A for ; Mon, 3 Nov 2014 13:28:44 +0100 (CET) Sender: ceph-devel-owner@vger.kernel.org List-ID: To: ceph-devel Hi, While look at init-ceph and ceph-disk I noticed a discrepancy between them. init-ceph mounts XFS filesystems with rw,noatime,inode64, but ceph-disk(-active) with rw,noatime As inode64 gives the best performance, shouldn't ceph-disk do the same? Any implications if we add inode64 on running deployments? -- Wido den Hollander 42on B.V. Ceph trainer and consultant Phone: +31 (0)20 700 9902 Skype: contact42on