From: Andreas Dilger Subject: Re: [PATCH] sanity check inode size vs inode ratio Date: Thu, 24 May 2007 03:38:31 -0600 Message-ID: <20070524093831.GI5181@schatzie.adilger.int> References: <20070514230311.GA5568@schatzie.adilger.int> <20070522194504.GB4668@thunk.org> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Cc: linux-ext4@vger.kernel.org To: Theodore Tso Return-path: Received: from mail.clusterfs.com ([206.168.112.78]:47124 "EHLO mail.clusterfs.com" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1754798AbXEXJid (ORCPT ); Thu, 24 May 2007 05:38:33 -0400 Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <20070522194504.GB4668@thunk.org> Sender: linux-ext4-owner@vger.kernel.org List-Id: linux-ext4.vger.kernel.org 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.