From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: with ECARTIS (v1.0.0; list xfs); Mon, 29 Oct 2007 01:55:20 -0700 (PDT) Received: from larry.melbourne.sgi.com (larry.melbourne.sgi.com [134.14.52.130]) by oss.sgi.com (8.12.11.20060308/8.12.10/SuSE Linux 0.7) with SMTP id l9T8t55v014478 for ; Mon, 29 Oct 2007 01:55:08 -0700 Date: Mon, 29 Oct 2007 19:55:02 +1100 From: David Chinner Subject: Re: Default mount options (that suck less). Message-ID: <20071029085502.GI995458@sgi.com> References: <20071029075657.GA84369978@melbourne.sgi.com> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <20071029075657.GA84369978@melbourne.sgi.com> Sender: xfs-bounce@oss.sgi.com Errors-to: xfs-bounce@oss.sgi.com List-Id: xfs To: Niv Sardi Cc: xfs@oss.sgi.com On Mon, Oct 29, 2007 at 06:56:57PM +1100, Niv Sardi wrote: > Hello, > > XFS's default mount options are in most cases sub-optimal, we should try Mkfs options ;) > to have more sensible defaults, so far I'm following some quick dave-powered > recomendations: > > - version 2 logs > - attr2 > - lazy superblock counters > - less allocation groups for single disk configs > > - imaxpct default can be reduced > > it is currently 25, what would be reasonable ? 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. -- Dave Chinner Principal Engineer SGI Australian Software Group