From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: from mail-io0-f195.google.com ([209.85.223.195]:33016 "EHLO mail-io0-f195.google.com" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S935492AbdAJQF0 (ORCPT ); Tue, 10 Jan 2017 11:05:26 -0500 Received: by mail-io0-f195.google.com with SMTP id 101so6511538iom.0 for ; Tue, 10 Jan 2017 08:05:26 -0800 (PST) Subject: Re: mkfs.btrfs/balance small-btrfs chunk size RFC To: Hugo Mills , linux-btrfs@vger.kernel.org References: <20170110152905.GJ19585@carfax.org.uk> <20170110154753.GK19585@carfax.org.uk> From: "Austin S. Hemmelgarn" Message-ID: <46721c7c-2be2-28e8-c387-4d88b6d1a09d@gmail.com> Date: Tue, 10 Jan 2017 11:05:17 -0500 MIME-Version: 1.0 In-Reply-To: <20170110154753.GK19585@carfax.org.uk> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=windows-1252; format=flowed Sender: linux-btrfs-owner@vger.kernel.org List-ID: On 2017-01-10 10:47, Hugo Mills wrote: > On Tue, Jan 10, 2017 at 10:42:51AM -0500, Austin S. Hemmelgarn wrote: >> Most of the issue in this case is with the size of the initial >> chunk. That said, I've got quite a few reasonably sized filesystems >> (I think the largest is 200GB) with moderate usage (max 90GB of >> data), and none of them are using more than the first 16kB block in >> the System chunk. While I'm not necessarily a typical user, I'd be >> willing to bet based on this that in general, most people who aren't >> storing very large amounts of data or taking huge numbers of >> snapshots aren't going to need a system chunk much bigger than 1MB. > > Again, the system chunk has *nothing* to do with snapshots. Apologies, I somehow completely missed the part of your first reply where you commented on that... > > Agreed with everything else, though. > > Hugo. >