From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: with ECARTIS (v1.0.0; list xfs); Mon, 29 Oct 2007 07:01:56 -0700 (PDT) Received: from sandeen.net (sandeen.net [209.173.210.139]) by oss.sgi.com (8.12.11.20060308/8.12.10/SuSE Linux 0.7) with ESMTP id l9TE1n5H021294 for ; Mon, 29 Oct 2007 07:01:53 -0700 Message-ID: <4725E7D0.8090400@sandeen.net> Date: Mon, 29 Oct 2007 09:01:52 -0500 From: Eric Sandeen MIME-Version: 1.0 Subject: Re: Default mount options (that suck less). References: <20071029075657.GA84369978@melbourne.sgi.com> <20071029085502.GI995458@sgi.com> In-Reply-To: <20071029085502.GI995458@sgi.com> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: xfs-bounce@oss.sgi.com Errors-to: xfs-bounce@oss.sgi.com List-Id: xfs To: David Chinner Cc: Niv Sardi , xfs@oss.sgi.com David Chinner wrote: > 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..... But what does this affect? It's a cap, but it doesn't affect allocation policy or anything does it? What's the downside to 25%? -Eric