From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: from cuda.sgi.com (cuda2.sgi.com [192.48.176.25]) by oss.sgi.com (8.14.3/8.14.3/SuSE Linux 0.8) with ESMTP id o9CDpZds100312 for ; Tue, 12 Oct 2010 08:51:36 -0500 Received: from flyingAngel.upjs.sk (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by cuda.sgi.com (Spam Firewall) with ESMTP id 79268DDF66 for ; Tue, 12 Oct 2010 06:52:42 -0700 (PDT) Received: from flyingAngel.upjs.sk (static113-109.rudna.net [212.20.113.109]) by cuda.sgi.com with ESMTP id 2FsaxVtVNG4sbvZj for ; Tue, 12 Oct 2010 06:52:42 -0700 (PDT) Message-ID: <4CB46828.2030104@mail.upjs.sk> Date: Tue, 12 Oct 2010 15:52:40 +0200 From: Jan Derfinak MIME-Version: 1.0 Subject: Re: ENOSPC at 90% with plenty of inodes References: <20101008225146.GJ4681@dastard> <20101011223507.GB32255@dastard> <4CB3B964.40109@hardwarefreak.com> <20101012102954.GQ4681@dastard> In-Reply-To: <20101012102954.GQ4681@dastard> List-Id: XFS Filesystem from SGI List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: xfs-bounces@oss.sgi.com Errors-To: xfs-bounces@oss.sgi.com To: Dave Chinner Cc: Stan Hoeppner , xfs@oss.sgi.com Dave Chinner wrote: >> If so, could/should the OP specify anything >> during the mkfs.xfs reformat that may help alleviate or mitigate his >> problem in the future? > > No. These problems usually appear in filesystems that have run at > greater than 85-90% full for extended periods of time without being > emptied at all. Once you start to free up space, it naturally > defragments itself, but if you never free up any significant amount > of space in the filesytesm, this cannot occur and so fragmentation > just keeps getting worse.... I'm curious if using noikeep mount option has any effect on free space fragmentation? jan _______________________________________________ xfs mailing list xfs@oss.sgi.com http://oss.sgi.com/mailman/listinfo/xfs