From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: from mail-pb0-f46.google.com ([209.85.160.46]:63558 "EHLO mail-pb0-f46.google.com" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1752845Ab2KEQZi (ORCPT ); Mon, 5 Nov 2012 11:25:38 -0500 Received: by mail-pb0-f46.google.com with SMTP id rr4so4031217pbb.19 for ; Mon, 05 Nov 2012 08:25:38 -0800 (PST) MIME-Version: 1.0 In-Reply-To: <20121105160649.GM3102@twin.jikos.cz> References: <20121105160649.GM3102@twin.jikos.cz> Date: Mon, 5 Nov 2012 10:25:38 -0600 Message-ID: Subject: Re: (late) REQUEST: Default mkfs.btrfs block size From: cwillu To: dave@jikos.cz, Alex , linux-btrfs@vger.kernel.org Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8 Sender: linux-btrfs-owner@vger.kernel.org List-ID: On Mon, Nov 5, 2012 at 10:06 AM, David Sterba wrote: > On Wed, Oct 31, 2012 at 12:20:39PM +0000, Alex wrote: >> As one 'stuck' with 4k leaves on my main machine for the moment, can I request >> the btrfs-progs v0.20 defaults to more efficient decent block sizes before >> release. Most distro install programs for the moment don't give access to the >> options at install time and there seems to be is a significant advantage to 16k >> or 32k > > IMHO this should be fixed inside the installer, changing defaults for a > core utility will affect everybody. 4k is the most tested option and > thus can be considered "safe for everybody". > > The installer may let you to enter a shell and create the filesystem by > hand, then point it to use it for installation. If we know a better setting, we should default to it. Punting the decision to the distro just means I'll spend the next 3 years telling people "yeah, distro X doesn't set it to the recommended setting (which isn't the mkfs default), and there's no way to change it without wiping and reinstalling using manual partitioning blah blah blah."