[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <20070524093831.GI5181@schatzie.adilger.int>
Date: Thu, 24 May 2007 03:38:31 -0600
From: Andreas Dilger <adilger@...sterfs.com>
To: Theodore Tso <tytso@....edu>
Cc: linux-ext4@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH] sanity check inode size vs inode ratio
On May 22, 2007 15:45 -0400, Theodore Tso wrote:
> On Mon, May 14, 2007 at 05:03:11PM -0600, Andreas Dilger wrote:
> > A quick patch to sanity check the inode ratio vs the inode size. In some
> > cases Lustre users have tried specifying an inode size of 4096 bytes, while
> > keeping an inode ratio of one inode per 4096 bytes, causing mke2fs to spin
> > forever trying to allocate the inode tables. I'm sure more people will do
> > this now that large inodes are available in ext4 and documented in e2fsprogs.
>
> I can't replicate this. I'm guessing you are doing this with the
> clusterfs codebase that has the extent patches? Mke2fs shouldn't be
> spinning if it can't allocate the inode tables. Instead it should
> print the error message:
Hmm, I suppose it might be due to running this on a 2TB filesystem that is
trying to allocate a huge number of inodes. It could also have been with
an older version of mke2fs - it was a customer that reported the problem.
I just happened to be poking in that bit of code recently and thought I'd
add the sanity check. I don't think it relates to CFS patches, since we
don't change mke2fs at all for the extent code.
We can let it drop for now, until I have a reproducer.
Cheers, Andreas
--
Andreas Dilger
Principal Software Engineer
Cluster File Systems, Inc.
-
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-ext4" in
the body of a message to majordomo@...r.kernel.org
More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Powered by blists - more mailing lists