From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: with ECARTIS (v1.0.0; list xfs); Thu, 22 May 2008 15:12:18 -0700 (PDT) Received: from larry.melbourne.sgi.com (larry.melbourne.sgi.com [134.14.52.130]) by oss.sgi.com (8.12.11.20060308/8.12.11/SuSE Linux 0.7) with SMTP id m4MMCAOe022826 for ; Thu, 22 May 2008 15:12:12 -0700 Date: Fri, 23 May 2008 08:12:52 +1000 From: David Chinner Subject: Re: [patch] xfsqa test to check log size scaling Message-ID: <20080522221252.GV173056135@sgi.com> References: <20080522061257.GR173056135@sgi.com> <20080522132542.GC4972@infradead.org> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <20080522132542.GC4972@infradead.org> Sender: xfs-bounce@oss.sgi.com Errors-to: xfs-bounce@oss.sgi.com List-Id: xfs To: Christoph Hellwig Cc: David Chinner , xfs-dev , xfs-oss On Thu, May 22, 2008 at 09:25:42AM -0400, Christoph Hellwig wrote: > On Thu, May 22, 2008 at 04:12:57PM +1000, David Chinner wrote: > > XFS-QA test to check that log size scaling works correctly > > for old and new maximum log sizes. > > Am I missing somethign or would this fail if the partitions used for > xfsqa are smaller than 256GB? I don't even have that much total storage > on my laptop :) Uses loop devices and sparse files - should work just fine on any partition a bit over 2GB (the log gets zeroed during mkfs). I know it passses on a 14GB scratch filesystem.... Cheers, Dave. -- Dave Chinner Principal Engineer SGI Australian Software Group