Hi, I'm trying to determine the optimal combination of kernel version and xfs-progs version to use on a Debian Jessie system (for amd64). I've searched this mailing list, and noticed the following exchange: http://www.spinics.net/lists/xfs/msg36165.html specifically, Dave's response: "As it is, in future the version of xfsprogs will tell you what kernel has the same feature support. i.e. xfsprogs 4.2.0 has exactly the same code/feature support as kernel 4.2.0. Similarly for xfsprogs/kernel 4.3.0." I'm also aware that prior to xfsprogs 4.2.0, userspace versioning did not match kernel numbering, as noted: https://git.kernel.org/cgit/fs/xfs/xfsprogs-dev.git/refs/tags https://www.spinics.net/lists/xfs/msg33984.html So, as I understand the situation, xfsprogs 3.2.x was associated with a lot of different 3.x and 4.y (y<2) kernels. Further, I want to make sure to take advantage of all the (current and future) reliability improvements of the new xfs v5 on-disk format, which means (from what I follow) that I need at least kernel 3.15 and xfsprogs 3.2.0, as seen here: https://www.spinics.net/lists/xfs/msg27961.html My main concern focuses on the options currently available in Debian (primarily Jessie + backports). Here's the matchup of what Debian ships (jessie, jessie-bpo, and stretch): linux-kernel xfs-progs Jessie: 3.16.36 3.2.1 Jessie Backports: 4.7.8 4.3.0 Stretch: 4.8.5 4.3.0 So, at first pass, I could just use native jessie's kernel 3.16.36 and xfsprogs 3.2.1 (and they seem to match well, as they were released together). However, I actually have to use a more recent kernel anyway for some SkyLake support issues. So, that takes us to at least kernel 4.7.8. I note, though, that jessie-backports is *not* packaging xfsprogs 4.7 alongside its kernel (but instead xfsprogs 4.3.0); similar issues exist for the 4.8.5 kernel from stretch. Assuming I stick to binary packages distributed through the official Debian repos, what's the recommendation of the xfs experts: would I be better off (in terms of reliability) with xfsprogs 3.2.1 or xfsprogs 4.3.0 used with kernel 4.7.8? As an alternative, would it be even better for me to use xfsprogs 4.7 (via compiling from source, even though I'd rather not)? Also, what are current best-practice parameters for 'mkfs.xfs' in order to optimize reliability? Filesystem size is ~10 TB on top of LUKS-encrypted Software RAID-1 (using enterprise 512e drives). I'd assume, we'd at least want the following: -m crc=1 finobt=1 Any pointers to a good write-up on optimizing such creation (and later, mount-time) decisions? Thanks so much (and for all your work on XFS, too). -John -- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-xfs" in the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
