SuSE 9.2 Pro - Install - XFS
Installation fails when trying to use XFS with inode size set to 512. Inode size was the only file system option that was set. Using XFS without this option works correctly. Any guidance would be appreciated. Thanks, Hudson __________________________________ Do you Yahoo!? Send a seasonal email greeting and help others. Do good. http://celebrity.mail.yahoo.com
On Tuesday 14 December 2004 08:04 pm, hudson wrote:
Installation fails when trying to use XFS with inode size set to 512. Inode size was the only file system option that was set. Using XFS without this option works correctly. Any guidance would be appreciated.
Don't change the inode option??
On Tue, 2004-12-14 at 20:34, Bruce Marshall wrote:
On Tuesday 14 December 2004 08:04 pm, hudson wrote:
Installation fails when trying to use XFS with inode size set to 512. Inode size was the only file system option that was set. Using XFS without this option works correctly. Any guidance would be appreciated.
Don't change the inode option??
I would have to agree, why change it? Or did you think you were changing the block size? block and inode are two different things. -- Ken Schneider UNIX since 1989 SuSE since 1998 * Only reply to the list please*
I want to mount with inodes set to 512 because of this: http://lists.samba.org/archive/samba-technical/2004-November/038143.html http://samba.org/~tridge/xattr_results/xattr.png Thanks Hudson __________________________________ Do you Yahoo!? Read only the mail you want - Yahoo! Mail SpamGuard. http://promotions.yahoo.com/new_mail
hudson wrote:
I want to mount with inodes set to 512 because of this:
http://lists.samba.org/archive/samba-technical/2004-November/038143.html
Sorry, I do not know enough about XFS to help on this. But I was trying to learn a bit by following this post. I went to both of your links and looked through the entire thread - there is no reference to setting "inodes" whatsoever. What am I missing? Thanks - Richard
Richard, On Wednesday 15 December 2004 11:53, Richard Mixon (qwest) wrote:
hudson wrote:
I want to mount with inodes set to 512 because of this:
http://lists.samba.org/archive/samba-technical/2004-November/038143.html
Sorry, I do not know enough about XFS to help on this. But I was trying to learn a bit by following this post. I went to both of your links and looked through the entire thread - there is no reference to setting "inodes" whatsoever. What am I missing?
In the body of the message to which the first link pointed was a URL leading to a page (http://samba.org/~tridge/xattr_results/) that contained several other links. The README link there (http://samba.org/~tridge/xattr_results/README) mentions that larger than default inodes (they mention 512 bytes) allow for extended attributes to be stored within the inode rather than requiring an independent allocation from the file system free block pool. In the first link (http://lists.samba.org/archive/samba-technical/2004-November/038143.html) it is mentioned that a new Samba ("Samba4"--I take it that's not the current one) will require extended attributes. So, the original poster wanted to follow the recommendation to use 512-byte inodes, because of the space and speed improvements doing so will provide when using this version of Samba. At least, that's what I gathered from it all.
Thanks - Richard
Randall Schulz
Randal, Randall R Schulz wrote:
Richard,
On Wednesday 15 December 2004 11:53, Richard Mixon (qwest) wrote:
hudson wrote:
I want to mount with inodes set to 512 because of this:
http://lists.samba.org/archive/samba-technical/2004-November/038143.html
What am I missing?
In the body of the message to which the first link pointed was a URL leading to a page (http://samba.org/~tridge/xattr_results/) that contained several other links. The README link there (http://samba.org/~tridge/xattr_results/README) mentions that larger than default inodes (they mention 512 bytes) allow for extended attributes to be stored within the inode rather than requiring an independent allocation from the file system free block pool.
In the first link
(<http://lists.samba.org/archive/samba-technical/2004-November/038143.ht ml>)
it is mentioned that a new Samba ("Samba4"--I take it that's not the current one) will require extended attributes.
So, the original poster wanted to follow the recommendation to use 512-byte inodes, because of the space and speed improvements doing so will provide when using this version of Samba.
Thanks, I looke at all the .png charts, but did not think to look at the README file. Your explanation was quite clear and it all makes sense now. Hope he can figure it out. - Richard
participants (5)
-
Bruce Marshall -
hudson -
Ken Schneider -
Randall R Schulz -
Richard Mixon (qwest)