From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: from relay.sgi.com (relay1.corp.sgi.com [137.38.102.111]) by oss.sgi.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 5AC5D7F6F for ; Tue, 28 Oct 2014 11:19:17 -0500 (CDT) Received: from cuda.sgi.com (cuda3.sgi.com [192.48.176.15]) by relay1.corp.sgi.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 488808F8064 for ; Tue, 28 Oct 2014 09:19:14 -0700 (PDT) Received: from srv2.trombetti.net (srv2.trombetti.net [65.254.53.252]) by cuda.sgi.com with ESMTP id vnZbOPp33xW1LKzJ for ; Tue, 28 Oct 2014 09:19:13 -0700 (PDT) Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) (using TLSv1 with cipher DHE-RSA-AES128-SHA (128/128 bits)) (No client certificate requested) (Authenticated sender: SASL) by srv2.trombetti.net (Postfix) with ESMTPSA id 7AB9C3135C for ; Tue, 28 Oct 2014 12:34:09 -0400 (EDT) Message-ID: <544FC202.1000200@shiftmail.org> Date: Tue, 28 Oct 2014 17:19:14 +0100 From: Spelic MIME-Version: 1.0 Subject: XFS shrinking planned? 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 Hello all, XFS is such a good high performance filesystem, kudos for that. However for large filesystems (which are mainly those that require high performance) the ability to shrink would be really needed. People usually do not have double the space so to move files to a smaller XFS filesystem, and the inability of XFS to shrink forbids major reorganizations of the storage systems. Currently, for that reason I use ext4. Performance is still decent and flexibility is higher due to the ability to shrink, but I would use XFS if it could shrink. I suppose shrinking ability is not even planned, is it? Thank you S. _______________________________________________ xfs mailing list xfs@oss.sgi.com http://oss.sgi.com/mailman/listinfo/xfs