From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: with ECARTIS (v1.0.0; list xfs); Wed, 29 Nov 2006 09:16:22 -0800 (PST) Received: from mail.pacifica.ch (HSI-KBW-085-216-115-221.hsi.kabelbw.de [85.216.115.221]) by oss.sgi.com (8.12.10/8.12.10/SuSE Linux 0.7) with ESMTP id kATHGDaG019575 for ; Wed, 29 Nov 2006 09:16:17 -0800 Received: from uranus.atlantica ([fec0::1:2a0:24ff:fe57:9888] helo=localhost ident=jasmin) by mail.pacifica.ch with esmtps (TLSv1:AES256-SHA:256) (Exim 4.63) (envelope-from ) id 1GpSZF-000806-Um for xfs@oss.sgi.com; Wed, 29 Nov 2006 17:45:54 +0100 Date: Wed, 29 Nov 2006 17:45:53 +0100 From: Jasmin Buchert Subject: mkfs.xfs questions Message-Id: <20061129174553.e0ef3465.jasmin@pacifica.ch> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: xfs-bounce@oss.sgi.com Errors-to: xfs-bounce@oss.sgi.com List-Id: xfs To: xfs@oss.sgi.com Hi, I'm planning to use XFS but have some questions.. Is there any real advantage of making the log size 32-64 MB and what is the difference between log version 1 and 2 regarding to efficency/performance? Is it true that a small agcount is better for most systems (Gentoo and some other sources recommend this)? It's a desktop machine. Greetings, Jasmin Buchert