[adding cc: linux-xfs] On Sun, Nov 5, 2017 at 10:17 AM, L A Walsh <lkml@xxxxxxxxx> wrote: > Amir Goldstein wrote: >> >> >> >>> >>> I then created a new xfs file system and mounted it on '/edge'; >>> >>> Ishtar:/edge> xfs_info . >>> meta-data=/dev/Data/Edge isize=256 agcount=32, >>> agsize=16777200 blks = sectsz=4096 attr=2 >>> data = bsize=4096 blocks=536870400, imaxpct=5 >>> = sunit=16 swidth=64 blks >>> naming =version 2 bsize=4096 ascii-ci=0 >>> log =internal bsize=4096 blocks=262143, version=2 >>> = sectsz=4096 sunit=1 blks, lazy-count=1 >>> realtime =none extsz=4096 blocks=0, rtextents=0 >>> >>> >> >> >> Your problem is that you do not have "ftype" feature in directory >> name format, like this: >> >> naming =version 2 bsize=4096 ascii-ci=0 ftype=1 >> >> Perhaps you have an old version of mkfs.xfs, not sure when >> ftype=1 became the default format, but you can try to >> mkfs.xfs -n ftype=1 >> > > ---- Ah... no .. last I was told, if you turned on ftype=1, > you had to also pull in crc'ing of all the meta-info. > That has problems -- causes errors where there would be no > problem, and was never tested on mature file systems that were > already fragmented. > > > Do you know if it was separated from crc32 -- for some inexplicable reason, > if you wanted ftype, then the crc option would be forced on for you. > I don't know if there was a specific reason, but that's the way it is. > I didn't want it as I didn't want it to flag errors in metadata that > wasn't crucial and didn't want the speed slowdown. Sigh. > > The problem on crc'ing the meta data, is that there is ALOT more meta > data where detecting it will do more harm than good (like what nanosecond > the file was last changed, for example). I first ran into it > taking the disk offline when I changed the guid on a newly formatted disk. > That was fixed, but that was a warning shot... How annoying. > I have never heard about those issues that you raise. It sounds like a myth about XFS metadata CRC that should be debunked so forwarding your message on to XFS list. See also https://www.spinics.net/lists/xfs/msg19079.html > > From what you say, though only the upper layer needs to have the ftype=1. > That's a new filesystem, so shouldn't make that much difference, but the > lower fs's I'd want to use overlays with are older file systems. But > it sounds like those can remain as they are? > > (assuming they don't become upper layers in some multi-layer > scenario)... > That is correct. Amir. -- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-unionfs" in the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
