From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: from relay.sgi.com (relay2.corp.sgi.com [137.38.102.29]) by oss.sgi.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 9ED7D7CBE for ; Sat, 24 Aug 2013 19:00:20 -0500 (CDT) Received: from cuda.sgi.com (cuda3.sgi.com [192.48.176.15]) by relay2.corp.sgi.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 866B8304043 for ; Sat, 24 Aug 2013 17:00:20 -0700 (PDT) Received: from mail-ie0-f171.google.com (mail-ie0-f171.google.com [209.85.223.171]) by cuda.sgi.com with ESMTP id WPcvlc9X1riAKVm7 (version=TLSv1 cipher=RC4-SHA bits=128 verify=NO) for ; Sat, 24 Aug 2013 17:00:19 -0700 (PDT) Received: by mail-ie0-f171.google.com with SMTP id 9so3011163iec.16 for ; Sat, 24 Aug 2013 17:00:19 -0700 (PDT) Message-ID: <52194911.3050606@gmail.com> Date: Sat, 24 Aug 2013 20:00:17 -0400 From: Joe Landman MIME-Version: 1.0 Subject: Re: Default mkfs parms for my DVR drive References: <1365641.4934.1377388085878.JavaMail.root@benjamin.baylink.com> In-Reply-To: <1365641.4934.1377388085878.JavaMail.root@benjamin.baylink.com> List-Id: XFS Filesystem from SGI List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"; Format="flowed" Errors-To: xfs-bounces@oss.sgi.com Sender: xfs-bounces@oss.sgi.com To: xfs@oss.sgi.com On 08/24/2013 07:48 PM, Jay Ashworth wrote: > This is a Seagate ST3000DM001, all one volume, for my sister's DVR on > which I've been doing this volume recovery work. The default setup that > mkfs.xfs returns with no parms supplies is this: > > meta-data=/dev/sda1 isize=256 agcount=4, agsize=183141568 blks > = sectsz=4096 attr=2, projid32bit=0 > data = bsize=4096 blocks=732566272, imaxpct=5 > = sunit=0 swidth=0 blks > naming =version 2 bsize=4096 ascii-ci=0 > log =internal log bsize=4096 blocks=357698, version=2 > = sectsz=4096 sunit=1 blks, lazy-count=1 > realtime =none extsz=4096 blocks=0, rtextents=0 > > and that takes about 3 minutes to mkfs a 3TB drive. > > Anyone have some thoughts they wish to cast upon the waters about either part > of that? Dave, Eric, and the rest of the xfs team will tell you "use the defaults Luke". For 99 and 44/100ths percent of users, this is the right choice. I am guessing that some of the delay may be the speed of the interface to the disk ... but even then 3 minutes sounds long, unless something else is hitting the disk at the same time. Which kernel version btw? A quick 'uname -a' is a good thing. Your hardware could also be somewhat slow ... Could you do an lshw -class disk -class storage _______________________________________________ xfs mailing list xfs@oss.sgi.com http://oss.sgi.com/mailman/listinfo/xfs