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 33FB57CBF for ; Thu, 10 Sep 2015 19:12:49 -0500 (CDT) Received: from cuda.sgi.com (cuda2.sgi.com [192.48.176.25]) by relay2.corp.sgi.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 23A1C304032 for ; Thu, 10 Sep 2015 17:12:45 -0700 (PDT) Received: from sandeen.net (sandeen.net [63.231.237.45]) by cuda.sgi.com with ESMTP id dVPGG5Ap815Griqk for ; Thu, 10 Sep 2015 17:12:41 -0700 (PDT) Received: from liberator.sandeen.net (liberator.sandeen.net [10.0.0.4]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher DHE-RSA-AES128-SHA (128/128 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by sandeen.net (Postfix) with ESMTPSA id 657E165EBB85 for ; Thu, 10 Sep 2015 19:12:40 -0500 (CDT) Subject: Re: "This is a bug." References: <20150910134828.0bdfcc4c@harpe.intellique.com> <20150910115548.GD26847@tehanu.it.jyu.fi> <20150910123030.GG26847@tehanu.it.jyu.fi> <20150910123603.GA27863@bfoster.bfoster> <20150910125441.GA28374@tehanu.it.jyu.fi> <20150910130106.GB27863@bfoster.bfoster> <20150910130530.GB28374@tehanu.it.jyu.fi> <20150910145154.GC27863@bfoster.bfoster> <20150910173138.GB18940@tarvainen.info> <20150910175557.GE27863@bfoster.bfoster> <20150910180339.GB18739@tarvainen.info> From: Eric Sandeen Message-ID: <55F21C77.6030009@sandeen.net> Date: Thu, 10 Sep 2015 19:12:39 -0500 MIME-Version: 1.0 In-Reply-To: <20150910180339.GB18739@tarvainen.info> 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 Errors-To: xfs-bounces@oss.sgi.com Sender: xfs-bounces@oss.sgi.com To: xfs@oss.sgi.com On 9/10/15 1:03 PM, Tapani Tarvainen wrote: > On Thu, Sep 10, 2015 at 01:55:58PM -0400, Brian Foster (bfoster@redhat.com) wrote: > >>>> So that's a 6TB fs with over 24000 allocation groups of size 256MB, as >>>> opposed to the mkfs default of 6 allocation groups of 1TB each. Is that >>>> intentional? >>> >>> Not to my knowledge. Unless I'm mistaken, the filesystem was created >>> while the machine was running Debian Squeeze, using whatever defaults >>> were back then. > >> Strange... was the filesystem created small and then grown to a much >> larger size via xfs_growfs? > > Almost certainly yes, although how small it initially was I'm not > sure. Oof; with a default of 4 AGs that means that this filesystem was likely grown from 1G to 6T. Like Brian says, that is definitely not recommended. ;) -Eric _______________________________________________ xfs mailing list xfs@oss.sgi.com http://oss.sgi.com/mailman/listinfo/xfs