Theodore Tso wrote:
> On Mon, May 07, 2007 at 11:31:22AM -0500, Eric Sandeen wrote: One of
>> our testers filed a bug that said "mkfs.ext3 is much slower when
>> mke2fs.conf is missing..."
>>
>> This is because the shipped defaults in mke2fs.conf do not match the
>> shipped defaults in the mkfs code itself; he wound up making a 1k
>> block filesystem on a very large block device, for example.
>>
>> So - How about this patch, to bring them back into line?
>
> It doesn't actually bring them completely back into line, since mke2fs
> will use different block sizes depending on the size of the
> filesystem. So your patch makes the default probably a bit more
> reasonable, and so I'll probably end up applying it, but it definitely
> isn't a complete replacement for /etc/mke2fs.conf.
Well, sure, I don't mean for it to *replace* mke2fs.conf...
Hm, does having
[defaults]
blocksize = 4096
in mke2fs.conf turn off the blocksize heuristics and force 4k? is
what's in mke2fs.conf a starting point or an absolute? I guess I need
to read up on the code...
> How likely do you think the case will be that mke2fs.conf would be
> missing? I'm trying to figure out how high priority of an item this
> really is.
Well, not too likely, although for some reason I guess it happened in
the installer root in FC6 or so. That's what raised the issue.
> We could enhance the profile code so that it could read in the profile
> from a memory buffer, and simply compile /etc/mke2fs.conf into mke2fs,
> but that adds bloat --- the question is how necessary do we think that
> really is?
I guess it doesn't really sound *necessary* - it's just that if we have
2 different "defaults" and they drift, it can be confusing...
-Eric
-
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-ext4" in
the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
