From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: from relay.sgi.com (relay1.corp.sgi.com [137.38.102.111]) by oss.sgi.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 428D57F37 for ; Wed, 28 Jan 2015 12:05:33 -0600 (CST) Received: from cuda.sgi.com (cuda2.sgi.com [192.48.176.25]) by relay1.corp.sgi.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 319188F8065 for ; Wed, 28 Jan 2015 10:05:32 -0800 (PST) Received: from sandeen.net (sandeen.net [63.231.237.45]) by cuda.sgi.com with ESMTP id 5kP6j34rMWJ8jtH7 for ; Wed, 28 Jan 2015 10:05:28 -0800 (PST) Message-ID: <54C924E7.5020404@sandeen.net> Date: Wed, 28 Jan 2015 12:05:27 -0600 From: Eric Sandeen MIME-Version: 1.0 Subject: Re: maxpct option for small xfs filesystems References: <54C667F3.8040303@oracle.com> <20150126223715.GA7621@dastard> <54C7BB78.4060203@oracle.com> <54C7BD60.5000104@sandeen.net> <54C8BCEC.5050101@oracle.com> In-Reply-To: <54C8BCEC.5050101@oracle.com> List-Id: XFS Filesystem from SGI List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Errors-To: xfs-bounces@oss.sgi.com Sender: xfs-bounces@oss.sgi.com To: Alexander Tsvetkov , Dave Chinner Cc: xfs@oss.sgi.com On 1/28/15 4:41 AM, Alexander Tsvetkov wrote: > What is expected behaviour in this case when it's required for fs to allocate new inodes starting to exceed defined maxpct > percentage? Which error is expected to be returned to user, enospc or probably just some warning? Sorry, I didn't answer this. ENOSPC is expected. There's not a lot of value in enforcing this strictly to the last inode, because a % is fairly coarse anyway, but we should not blow right past it as we do today. -Eric _______________________________________________ xfs mailing list xfs@oss.sgi.com http://oss.sgi.com/mailman/listinfo/xfs