Gentoo Forums
Gentoo Forums
Gentoo Forums
Quick Search: in
Some ext3 Filesystem Tips
View unanswered posts
View posts from last 24 hours

Goto page Previous  1, 2, 3 ... 5, 6, 7 ... 13, 14, 15  Next  
Reply to topic    Gentoo Forums Forum Index Documentation, Tips & Tricks
View previous topic :: View next topic  
Author Message
pv
Tux's lil' helper
Tux's lil' helper


Joined: 25 Mar 2005
Posts: 103
Location: Russia, Yaroslavl

PostPosted: Tue Dec 27, 2005 8:51 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

BeteNoire wrote:
But now it's time to re-think my solutions, and if someone can explain why do I have to do some special procedures to get ext3's best features, why it doesn't use them by default - I'd be very thankful.


1. As you can notice MOST Linux programs WOULD be configured before usage. This is the reason why novices are much afraid of Linux at all and tries using "simplier" software. And this is why Linux appears to be VERY configurable OS (especially source-based distros). If you've configured some Linux feature (for example, configure network or tune filesystem or compiler flags) you have the idea HOW IT WORKS. In some other OSes if you've configured some feature you just have the idea HOW TO CONFIGURE IT. In other words, you cannot correctly configure Linux without the knowledge of basic principles of its working. I think it's wonderful :D

2. The idea of "the best features" is relative. For example, I think data=journal is the best for its stability. But many people think it's too slow and recommend everybody using data=writeback.

Linux is YOUR choice. So YOU (not YOUR DISTRO'S VENDOR) HAVE to choose.
_________________
Nothing but perfection.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
XenoTerraCide
Veteran
Veteran


Joined: 18 Jan 2004
Posts: 1418
Location: MI, USA

PostPosted: Tue Dec 27, 2005 9:44 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

Quote:
but there is always one question which concerns me: if ext3 is the best linux filesystem (as some say) then why it doesn't use its best features by default?
the answer is simply this. what's best is your choice. it's like Windows XP and it's flashy xp style an animations are all on by default. I make my system go back to the 2000 and prior way of looking because the only system I've run that this causes no performance loss is my 64-bit laptop. the defaults are what the developer(s) think is best for most people. correct me if I'm wrong but but doesn't data=journal consume a little more hard drive space. which is probably why it's off by default. and data=writeback... couldn't that cause problems if the system loses power suddenly? so the default's for say ext3 are the compromise between speed and space. this is an opinion however feel free to dispute it.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
linuxtuxhellsinki
l33t
l33t


Joined: 15 Nov 2004
Posts: 700
Location: Hellsinki

PostPosted: Wed Dec 28, 2005 4:57 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

I'm also using ext2/3 on almost all of my partitions, only on few computer's /home partitions are reisers.

Only place where I think that reiserfs(or ext2) could be better because it's fast with small files is /usr/portage (& /tmp). So I think that I'll make one about 4GB partition and mount it to /usr/portage and then using some /usr/portage/tmp/ as /tmp-dir for compiling etc.(which is cleaned in boot-time)
Because those are not so important and it's easy to sync portage-tree back if something happens :wink:

I was also trying first time that dir_index option on one machine's /usr partition, where I copied the whole system from another almost similar P4, and it's feeling really fast with emerging & syncing with it.
That could be because there's 10K RPM SCSI drive in it, while the older machine has 7.2K SCSI.
Maybe I could run some tests, but it'd not be fair for that older system cause it's not with fresh filesystems :roll:

codergeek42 - Thaks for nice informatic thread :)

PS. That copying the whole system to another 'quite' similar computer is really nice 'feature' in Linux-world :P
_________________
1st use 'Search' & lastly add [Solved] to
the subject of your first post in the thread.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
XenoTerraCide
Veteran
Veteran


Joined: 18 Jan 2004
Posts: 1418
Location: MI, USA

PostPosted: Wed Dec 28, 2005 5:07 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

hey linuxtuxhellsinki how did you do the copying of the whole filesystem. I wanted to do that once but no one could tell me how. I'm sure I could do it now... but I'm wondering how you did it.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
pv
Tux's lil' helper
Tux's lil' helper


Joined: 25 Mar 2005
Posts: 103
Location: Russia, Yaroslavl

PostPosted: Wed Dec 28, 2005 8:36 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

XenoTerraCide wrote:
Correct me if I'm wrong but doesn't data=journal consume a little more hard drive space which is probably why it's off by default.


Sorry, you are wrong. When creating ext3 partition the disk area for the journal is allocated in any case. When mounting, it already exists and so there is no difference in disk usage between data=journal and data=writeback.
BUT! Using data=journal forces more data to be written to disk because the data is written to the journal and only then to the disk. The latter increase the time neccesary to write data to disk.

XenoTerraCide wrote:
And data=writeback... couldn't that cause problems if the system loses power suddenly?

Yes, data=writeback can cause problems in this case.
_________________
Nothing but perfection.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
XenoTerraCide
Veteran
Veteran


Joined: 18 Jan 2004
Posts: 1418
Location: MI, USA

PostPosted: Wed Dec 28, 2005 8:41 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

yeah but data=journal isn't the default neither is data=writeback.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
XenoTerraCide
Veteran
Veteran


Joined: 18 Jan 2004
Posts: 1418
Location: MI, USA

PostPosted: Wed Dec 28, 2005 8:49 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

the default is metadata. and the question asked is why do they not use the best option's by default. my answer for data=journal is that it would take up more hard drive space than say metadata. I don't know why dir_index wouldn't be on by default though.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
codergeek42
Bodhisattva
Bodhisattva


Joined: 05 Apr 2004
Posts: 5142
Location: Anaheim, CA (USA)

PostPosted: Wed Dec 28, 2005 9:58 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

XenoTerraCide wrote:
the default is metadata. and the question asked is why do they not use the best option's by default. my answer for data=journal is that it would take up more hard drive space than say metadata.
To my knowledge, the size of the journal does not change, whichever data-writing mode you choose (unless you run `tune2fs -J <options>`).
_________________
~~ Peter: Programmer, Mathematician, STEM & Free Software Advocate, Enlightened Agent, Transhumanist, Fedora contributor
Who am I? :: EFF & FSF
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
XenoTerraCide
Veteran
Veteran


Joined: 18 Jan 2004
Posts: 1418
Location: MI, USA

PostPosted: Wed Dec 28, 2005 10:34 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

well if that's the case I may be wrong. I'm really making an educated guess. if data=journal commits more to the journal than standard metadata journaling then it would make sense that it would take more space... how much i don't know. but if you say it doesn't I stand corrected.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
StringCheesian
l33t
l33t


Joined: 21 Oct 2003
Posts: 887

PostPosted: Wed Dec 28, 2005 10:46 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

So is a "The default ext3 options suck, change them!" petition in order? Who's attention do we bring this to anyway?
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
linuxtuxhellsinki
l33t
l33t


Joined: 15 Nov 2004
Posts: 700
Location: Hellsinki

PostPosted: Thu Dec 29, 2005 5:38 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

XenoTerraCide wrote:
hey linuxtuxhellsinki how did you do the copying of the whole filesystem. I wanted to do that once but no one could tell me how. I'm sure I could do it now... but I'm wondering how you did it.


  • I just installed the new (scsi)drive into that other computer & made partitions & filesystems on it.
  • Mounted the partitions to /mnt/zda/ ../boot ../usr & that original Gentoo to /mnt/gentoo/ ....etc. via LiveCD, so that there's nothing changing when copying and there's no /dev, /proc & /tmp to exclude from copy.
  • #cp -a /mnt/gentoo/* /mnt/zda/ to copy all the data to the new drive.
  • Fixed the entries in /etc/fstab, grub.conf and some hostname & IP in /etc/conf.d/
  • Then I booted to that my Gentoo to install the grub to the new drive (could be just chrooted I think). I had to doublecheck this part cause I had 4 hd's & two scsi-drives had almost similar partitiontables, so grub showed them same way (hd2 & hd3) with similar partitions. So I checked 'em in another console with fdisk -l.
  • Shutdown, move drive to another computer(with similar scsi-card), boot & that's it Voila 8)


To clear a things little bit, the both computers were P4 (1.4 & 1.6Ghz) with quite similar Intel chipsets but different mobos. I had to run xorgconfig cause there was different GPU (I always boot first to textmode).

1st I thought that I've to make new Kernel to the other computer, but then I realized that there's so similar chipsets that the same kernel should work (& so it did work).
But I think that you can copy the whole system to another machine when there's not any big architechtural differences (like P4 > AMD64) with just making the new Kernel with the support to right chipset & HW :roll:

& now I remembered when I had first time installed Gentoo to this very same ThinkPad600 which I'm writing this from, and used this (PII 300Mhz) to install it to another PI 133Mhz ThinkPad's harddrive cause it hadn't got cd-rom or NIC on it, and that went well also while it was my second install of Gentoo (totally n00b) :D
_________________
1st use 'Search' & lastly add [Solved] to
the subject of your first post in the thread.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
lnxz
Guru
Guru


Joined: 03 Jul 2005
Posts: 472
Location: Earth

PostPosted: Thu Dec 29, 2005 7:03 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

XenoTerraCide wrote:
well if that's the case I may be wrong. I'm really making an educated guess. if data=journal commits more to the journal than standard metadata journaling then it would make sense that it would take more space... how much i don't know. but if you say it doesn't I stand corrected.


I don't think it commits *more* it just commits to metadata before it commits to the disk.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
XenoTerraCide
Veteran
Veteran


Joined: 18 Jan 2004
Posts: 1418
Location: MI, USA

PostPosted: Thu Dec 29, 2005 10:21 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

from tune2fs manpage.
Code:
         
                   journal_data
                          When  the  filesystem  is  mounted  with journalling
                          enabled, all data (not just metadata)  is  committed
                          into  the  journal  prior  to being written into the
                          main filesystem.

                   journal_data_ordered
                          When the  filesystem  is  mounted  with  journalling
                          enabled, all data is forced directly out to the main
                          file system prior to its metadata being committed to
                          the journal.

                   journal_data_writeback
                          When  the  filesystem  is  mounted  with journalling
                          enabled, data may be written into the main  filesys-
                          tem  after  its  metadata  has been committed to the
                          journal.  This may increase throughput, however,  it
                          may  allow old data to appear in files after a crash
                          and journal recovery.

so what were saying is that in the default all data is still committed to the journal however. it does metadata then the file then the rest of the data? cause if the default only does metadata it would seem to me that committing all the data to the journal would take up more space although the space may be extremely minuscule size. but everyone here says I'm wrong so yeah probably am... even if I was right... I'm not changing my options. It obviously doesn't take up enough space as to worry about it, and it's way better than what ntfs does. and can't say as I thought reiserfs was better. and when I had fs problems I can't say I could get them fixed in reiserfs either. never have played with xfs or jfs however.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
ruben
Guru
Guru


Joined: 04 Jul 2003
Posts: 462

PostPosted: Fri Dec 30, 2005 5:59 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

With "journal=data", there is effectively more data written to the journal, that's for sure. The size of the journal is at least 1024 filesystem blocks. But if i got it right, the journal is flushed each time a "commit" happens, thus by default each 5 seconds. And i suppose that it is written in a way that the journal is flushed/committed when it's full. So, i suppose that when you have "journal=data" there might be more 'forced' commits if you're having a high write load.

As to the question whether "ext3" is the "best" file system, and why it does not have by default the "best" options. Let me tell you that there is no such thing as the absolute "best" file system and there is no such thing as the absolute "best" set of default options. You chose a file system for its strengths and that's what's making that particular file system the "best" file system for *your* needs. The same with the options, the best set of options is completely dependent on your situation and your needs. The developers just chose a set of default options which are/seem reasonable for most use cases.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
carpman
Advocate
Advocate


Joined: 20 Jun 2002
Posts: 2202
Location: London - UK

PostPosted: Sat Dec 31, 2005 4:53 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

Hello, been reading this thread with great interest, normally use this layout

Code:

/boot        ext2
/              ext3
/usr          ext3
/var          reiserfs
/opt          xfs
/home       xfs
/tmp         reiserfs


May well try the suggestion in 1st post on laptop and see what occurs.

I am also building a server for a socketmail.com project and currently have

Code:

/var/lib/mysql         xfs
/var/www               reiserfs


Now after reading this i thinking of changing to ext3 with optimisation but not sure if it would benefit system?

Any feedback as to why i should change would be appreciated.

cheers
_________________
Work Station - 64bit
Gigabyte GA X48-DQ6 Core2duo E8400
8GB GSkill DDR2-1066
SATA Areca 1210 Raid
BFG OC2 8800 GTS 640mb
--------------------------------
Notebook
Samsung Q45 7100 4gb
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
linuxtuxhellsinki
l33t
l33t


Joined: 15 Nov 2004
Posts: 700
Location: Hellsinki

PostPosted: Sat Dec 31, 2005 8:00 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

Maybe /home to reiser (for performance) ? ? ?
_________________
1st use 'Search' & lastly add [Solved] to
the subject of your first post in the thread.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
XenoTerraCide
Veteran
Veteran


Joined: 18 Jan 2004
Posts: 1418
Location: MI, USA

PostPosted: Sat Dec 31, 2005 8:27 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

I would say /home on ext3. because reiserfs is geared towards smaller files and ur more likely to have medium size /home. and ext3 has better recovery options.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
carpman
Advocate
Advocate


Joined: 20 Jun 2002
Posts: 2202
Location: London - UK

PostPosted: Sat Dec 31, 2005 9:10 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

Thanks for replies, was thinking more of server partitions.

Choose xfs for mysql as anticipate large database, choose reiserfs for /var/www as it will hold users files.

Have been happy with xfs but now thinking that ext3 with optimisation maybe better for /var/www extra data security being one reason.


For my home systems i use xfs for /home and am happy with it so need convincing ext3 would be better, maybe /home as ext3 with optimisation and have dir that have large file, images, mp3 extra as xfs?

Only problem i have run into with xfs is resizing when used with lvm2, this alone may make me change if i can get good performace with ext3.
_________________
Work Station - 64bit
Gigabyte GA X48-DQ6 Core2duo E8400
8GB GSkill DDR2-1066
SATA Areca 1210 Raid
BFG OC2 8800 GTS 640mb
--------------------------------
Notebook
Samsung Q45 7100 4gb
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
RuiP
l33t
l33t


Joined: 15 Jan 2005
Posts: 643

PostPosted: Sat Dec 31, 2005 9:31 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

Hi, the question about /home should not be, i believe, optimazation, but safety.

XFS is good but a lot of people had problem with system not properly shutdown due to sudden power off.
They files became empty or filled with zeros...
In fact any part of system could be "recovered" eventually by installation, but your personal data is unique.
Your letters, docs, photos, whatever. If something goes wrong there is no way that you can get that data from nowhere!

Besides XFS is good special for large files. Delete is not good benchmarked and read/write small files (what usually happens when a user are logged, with configs and caches beeing written all the time) are usually beat by ext3 or reiser.
The only point i can see in using XFS for home is if you work specially with video or large size images... in that case maybe one gains something in terms of speed, and ususally those came from scanners and cameras so a copy or a redo maybe available most of time. Even in that case i prefer a separate XFS partition linked to my home. I use one for files and isos download from internet and for gentoo distfiles as ubuntu archives.

My 2 cents. Hope they help in any way.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
neenee
Veteran
Veteran


Joined: 20 Jul 2003
Posts: 1786

PostPosted: Sat Dec 31, 2005 9:41 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

please keep filesystem-choice discussions
confined to The Filesystem Choice thread ;-)
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
carpman
Advocate
Advocate


Joined: 20 Jun 2002
Posts: 2202
Location: London - UK

PostPosted: Sat Dec 31, 2005 9:47 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

RuiP wrote:
Hi, the question about /home should not be, i believe, optimazation, but safety.

XFS is good but a lot of people had problem with system not properly shutdown due to sudden power off.
They files became empty or filled with zeros...
In fact any part of system could be "recovered" eventually by installation, but your personal data is unique.
Your letters, docs, photos, whatever. If something goes wrong there is no way that you can get that data from nowhere!

Besides XFS is good special for large files. Delete is not good benchmarked and read/write small files (what usually happens when a user are logged, with configs and caches beeing written all the time) are usually beat by ext3 or reiser.
The only point i can see in using XFS for home is if you work specially with video or large size images... in that case maybe one gains something in terms of speed, and ususally those came from scanners and cameras so a copy or a redo maybe available most of time. Even in that case i prefer a separate XFS partition linked to my home. I use one for files and isos download from internet and for gentoo distfiles as ubuntu archives.

My 2 cents. Hope they help in any way.


Hello, that was my plan for future layout, but still does not answer question relating to server, will ext3 with optimisation be better then xfs for large database? i am thinking from posts that although slightly slower ext3 with optimisation is going to be better for /var/www !

/var/www is going to get lot of simultanious reads and writes?
_________________
Work Station - 64bit
Gigabyte GA X48-DQ6 Core2duo E8400
8GB GSkill DDR2-1066
SATA Areca 1210 Raid
BFG OC2 8800 GTS 640mb
--------------------------------
Notebook
Samsung Q45 7100 4gb
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
pv
Tux's lil' helper
Tux's lil' helper


Joined: 25 Mar 2005
Posts: 103
Location: Russia, Yaroslavl

PostPosted: Mon Jan 02, 2006 7:44 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

Hi all!

Several hours ago my computer was suddenly halted due to electricity problems. When electricity was restored I booted Gentoo and the following happened.

While mounting ReiserFS I saw the message like
Code:
ReiserFS: hda7: replayed 19 transactions in 1 seconds
which I could found in /var/log/messages or see with dmesg then.

But my ext3 partition (kernel module) didn't show me the similar message although while booting I saw something like
Code:
Checking all filesystems
/dev/hda3: recovering journal
/dev/hda3: clean

The latter is (as I found int /etc/init.d/checkfs) due to running fsck on the corresponding partition. Moreover I'm unable to find something concerning journal recovering in /var/log/messages.

So I have a few questions:
1. Does ext3 kernel module recover journal itself (not using fsck program) while mounting wrong-unmounted filesystem?
2. If so, why doesn't it show the corrresponding message in /var/log/messages?
3. Can I rely on the kernel module and, for example, disable checkfs script during boot process?
_________________
Nothing but perfection.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
codergeek42
Bodhisattva
Bodhisattva


Joined: 05 Apr 2004
Posts: 5142
Location: Anaheim, CA (USA)

PostPosted: Mon Jan 02, 2006 7:53 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

pv wrote:
So I have a few questions:
1. Does ext3 kernel module recover journal itself (not using fsck program) while mounting wrong-unmounted filesystem?
It seems to from my tests. Nice catch. :)
Quote:
2. If so, why doesn't it show the corrresponding message in /var/log/messages?
All it shows is that "recovering journal" message. I think you can enable the JBD (journalling block device layer) debugging for more verbose messages.
Quote:
3. Can I rely on the kernel module and, for example, disable checkfs script during boot process?
Though you probably could, I wouldn't. Though this is probably a matter of personal preference...
_________________
~~ Peter: Programmer, Mathematician, STEM & Free Software Advocate, Enlightened Agent, Transhumanist, Fedora contributor
Who am I? :: EFF & FSF
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
pv
Tux's lil' helper
Tux's lil' helper


Joined: 25 Mar 2005
Posts: 103
Location: Russia, Yaroslavl

PostPosted: Tue Jan 03, 2006 2:30 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

codergeek42 wrote:
Quote:
2. If so, why doesn't it show the corrresponding message in /var/log/messages?
All it shows is that "recovering journal" message. I think you can enable the JBD (journalling block device layer) debugging for more verbose messages.


I made a stupid mistake :(
JBD doesn't solve this problem because the problem is the following.

My set of ext3 partitions (unfortunatelly) doesn't contain the root one so Gentoo supposes they are local filesystems. During bootup process Gentoo startup scripts firstly checks all local filesystems marked in /etc/fstab with the last field not equal to 0 and only then mount them. So the startup script run fsck that recovers the ext3 partition and then tries to mount it. As fsck recovers the journal the kernel has nothing to do with it because it's recovered by the time it's being mounted. It's why the message like 'recovering filesystem' doesn't appear in var/log/messages.

When I had marked ext3 partitions with 0 as the last field in /etc/fstab, fsck didn't checked them while booting after hard-reset and the kernel wrote the recovery message in /var/log/messages even without JBD support.

I hope this will somehow help somebody in understanding linux boot process.
_________________
Nothing but perfection.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
wrc1944
Advocate
Advocate


Joined: 15 Aug 2002
Posts: 3231
Location: Gainesville, Florida

PostPosted: Wed Jan 04, 2006 12:37 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

After much thought and re-reading everything, I decided to try the ext3 journal_data_writeback mode (changed from my original journal_data choice), so I booted from a knoppix cd and ran:

tune2fs -o journal_data_writeback /dev/hda3

and then as an experiment edited my fstab ext3 lines to:

/dev/hda1 /boot ext3 noauto,noatime,commit=120 1 2
/dev/hda3 / ext3 noatime,commit=120 0 1

Then I rebooted back into Gentoo, and dumpe2fs shows the new journal mode, but apparently not the new commit=120 mount option. What am I missing, and if commit=120 is in effect, how would I know for sure?

EDIT: dmesg shows:
kjournald starting. Commit interval 5 seconds
EXT3-fs: mounted filesystem with writeback data mode

So I guess commit=120 isn't in force for some reason I'm missing.
---------------------
EDIT NUMBER TWO:
Reading some more, I decided instead of fstab, I actually needed to edit the grub.conf kernel boot line.

commit=nrsec (*) Ext3 can be told to write all its data and metadata +
every 'nrsec' seconds. The default value is 5 seconds. ...

What is the correct syntax? I've tried adding commit=nrsec=120, commit=120, and commit-nrsec (120) to my grub.conf line,
like this. Where am I going wrong? I've googled for hours, read hundreds of sites, and not found one example of the correct syntax. All that I've seen is just what the kernel Docs and manpages say, but no real world example of what they actually mean as to syntax. All my attempts and rebooting result in dmesg still reporting the same default 5 second interval.

title=2.6.13-gvivid
root (hd0,0)
kernel (hd0,0)/boot/2.6.13-gvivid root=/dev/hda3 video=vesafb:ywrap,mtrr vga=0x317 splash=verbose,theme:gentoo CONSOLE$=/dev/tty1 quiet commit=120
initrd /boot/fbsplash-gentoo-1024x768
----------------------------------------------
EDIT NUMBER 3: APPARENTLY SOLVED!
I added:
rootflags=commit=120

to my kernel boot line in grub.conf, and dmesg now shows:

kjournald starting. Commit interval 120 seconds
EXT3-fs: mounted filesystem with writeback data mode.

How ridiculous! Should have figured this out much sooner. :oops:


------------------------------------------------
mymachine wrc # dumpe2fs /dev/hda3
dumpe2fs 1.38 (30-Jun-2005)
Filesystem volume name: <none>
Last mounted on: <not available>
Filesystem UUID: 484ed04b-a858-425c-a917-0a25a1b28990
Filesystem magic number: 0xEF53
Filesystem revision #: 1 (dynamic)
Filesystem features: has_journal dir_index filetype needs_recovery sparse_super
Default mount options: journal_data_writeback
Filesystem state: clean
Errors behavior: Continue
Filesystem OS type: Linux
Inode count: 1221600
Block count: 2441376
Reserved block count: 122068
Free blocks: 1027232
Free inodes: 842422
First block: 0
Block size: 4096
Fragment size: 4096
Blocks per group: 32768
Fragments per group: 32768
Inodes per group: 16288
Inode blocks per group: 509
Filesystem created: Sat Dec 10 09:35:31 2005
Last mount time: Tue Jan 3 14:00:59 2006
Last write time: Tue Jan 3 14:00:59 2006
Mount count: 16
Maximum mount count: 26
Last checked: Mon Dec 19 11:46:25 2005
Check interval: 0 (<none>)
Reserved blocks uid: 0 (user root)
Reserved blocks gid: 0 (group root)
First inode: 11
Inode size: 128
Journal inode: 8
First orphan inode: 977337
Default directory hash: tea
Directory Hash Seed: 36681716-6609-4e78-a3f2-0699a3adb1e9
Journal backup: inode blocks


Group 0: (Blocks 0-32767)
Primary superblock at 0, Group descriptors at 1-1
Block bitmap at 2 (+2), Inode bitmap at 3 (+3)
Inode table at 4-512 (+4)
0 free blocks, 16277 free inodes, 2 directories
Free blocks:
Free inodes: 12-16288
Group 1: (Blocks 32768-65535)
Backup superblock at 32768, Group descriptors at 32769-32769
Block bitmap at 32770 (+2), Inode bitmap at 32771 (+3)
Inode table at 32772-33280 (+4)
27697 free blocks, 14292 free inodes, 560 directories
Free blocks: 33833-36863, 36869-38911, 38914-43007, 43012-51200, 51203-53247, etc. etc.
_________________
Main box- AsRock x370 Gaming K4
Ryzen 1700, 3.0GHz, 16GB GSkill Flare DDR4 3200mhz
Samsung SATA 1000GB, Radeon HD R7 350 2GB DDR5
Gentoo ~amd64 plasma, glibc-2.29-r2, gcc-9.1.0 kernel-5.0.14-gentoo USE=experimental
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
Display posts from previous:   
Reply to topic    Gentoo Forums Forum Index Documentation, Tips & Tricks All times are GMT
Goto page Previous  1, 2, 3 ... 5, 6, 7 ... 13, 14, 15  Next
Page 6 of 15

 
Jump to:  
You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum
You cannot vote in polls in this forum