Re: Default mount options (that suck less).

Timothy Shimmin
2007-10-30T00:46:10Z

Eric Sandeen wrote:
> Niv Sardi wrote:
>> Hello,
>>
>> XFS's default mount options are in most cases sub-optimal, we should try
>> 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 ?
>>
>> - dropping the ability to turn unwritten extents off completely
>>
>> please submit your pet-idea for better defaults here.
>
> Sorry for all the replies ;-)
>
> What would you think of a mkfs conf file like e2fsprogs has, which
> defines filesystem classes, and defaults for each? (small, news,
> largefile, etc...)
>
> -Eric
>

It might be interesting if people let us know what non-default
mkfs and mount options that they are using for their various
configurations/classes.
Didn't Russell C. have some survey years ago - can't remember if
that was for h/ware or what now.

Maybe Dave C. or others have some suggestions from performance runs
for various types of workloads. Do we have this compiled somewhere?

--Tim