Re: Performance impact of mkfs.xfs vs mkfs.xfs -f

[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]

 



On Tue, Aug 25, 2015 at 04:09:33PM -0700, Shrinand Javadekar wrote:
> I did this on 2 different setups.

Details?

> Formatted the new disks with mkfs.xfs. Ran the workload.
> Reformatted the disks with mkfs.xfs -f. Ran the workload.
> 
> >
> >> Any ideas why this might be happening?
> >
> > With the paucity of information you've provided, nope!
> 
> Apologies. What more information can I provide?

http://xfs.org/index.php/XFS_FAQ#Q:_What_information_should_I_include_when_reporting_a_problem.3F

> > What version of xfsprogs are you using?
> 
> # xfs_repair -V
> xfs_repair version 3.1.9

That's pretty old.

> > What was the output of mkfs.xfs each time; did the geometry differ?
> 
> I have the output of xfs_info /mount/point from the first experiment
> and that of mkfs.xfs -f. One difference I see is that reformatting
> adds projid32bit=0 for the inode section.

xfs_info didn't get projid32bit status output until 3.2.0.

Anyway, please post the output so we can see the differences for
ourselves. What we need is mkfs output in both cases, and xfs_info
output in both cases after mount.

Cheers,

Dave.
-- 
Dave Chinner
david@xxxxxxxxxxxxx

_______________________________________________
xfs mailing list
xfs@xxxxxxxxxxx
http://oss.sgi.com/mailman/listinfo/xfs



[Index of Archives]     [Linux XFS Devel]     [Linux Filesystem Development]     [Filesystem Testing]     [Linux USB Devel]     [Linux Audio Users]     [Yosemite News]     [Linux Kernel]     [Linux SCSI]

  Powered by Linux