From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: with ECARTIS (v1.0.0; list xfs); Mon, 29 Oct 2007 17:46:10 -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 l9U0k41w008782 for ; Mon, 29 Oct 2007 17:46:06 -0700 Message-ID: <47267EC7.8000906@sgi.com> Date: Tue, 30 Oct 2007 11:45:59 +1100 From: Timothy Shimmin MIME-Version: 1.0 Subject: Re: Default mount options (that suck less). References: <20071029075657.GA84369978@melbourne.sgi.com> <4725FBB4.1010400@sandeen.net> In-Reply-To: <4725FBB4.1010400@sandeen.net> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: xfs-bounce@oss.sgi.com Errors-to: xfs-bounce@oss.sgi.com List-Id: xfs To: Eric Sandeen Cc: Niv Sardi , xfs@oss.sgi.com 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