On 6/21/18 2:15 PM, Luis R. Rodriguez wrote: > On Tue, Jun 19, 2018 at 02:21:15PM -0500, Eric Sandeen wrote: >> On 6/19/18 11:18 AM, Darrick J. Wong wrote: >>> On Tue, Jun 19, 2018 at 02:27:29PM +0200, swadmin - levigo.de wrote: >>>> Hi @all >>>> I have a problem with mounting a large XFS filesystem which takes about >>>> 8-10 minutes. >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> :~# df -h /graylog_data >>>> Filesystem Size Used Avail Use% Mounted on >>>> /dev/mapper/vgdata-graylog_data 11T 5.0T 5.1T 50% /graylog_data >>>> >>>> ---- >>>> >>>> :~# xfs_info /dev/mapper/vgdata-graylog_data >>>> meta-data=/dev/mapper/vgdata-graylog_data isize=512 agcount=40805, >>>> agsize=65792 blks >>> >>> 41,000 AGs is a lot of metadata to load. Did someone growfs a 1G fs >>> into a 11T fs? >> >> <answer: yes, they did> >> >> Let me state that a little more clearly: this is a badly mis-administered >> filesystem; 40805 x 256MB AGs is nearly unusable, as you've seen. >> >> If at all possible I would start over with a rationally-created filesystem >> and migrate the data. > > Considering *a lot* of folks may typically follow the above "trap", wouldn't it > be wise for userspace to complain or warn when the user may want to do > something stupid like this? Otherwise I cannot see how we could possibly > conceive that this is badly administered filesystem. Fair point, though I'm not sure where such a warning would go. growfs? I'm not a big fan of the "you asked for something unusual, continue [y/N]?" type prompts. To people who know how xfs is laid out it's "obvious" but it's not fair to assume every admin knows this, you're right. So calling it mis-administered was a bit harsh. -Eric -- 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
