Note: "permalinks" may not be as permanent as we would like,
direct links of old sources may well be a few messages off.
/ 2005-09-02 18:32:53 +0200
\ Fabrice Durand:
> Sorry, I sent the message by error too fast, but I wanted to precise that
> the result of the command "blockdev --getsize name_of_drbd_disk"
> devided by 2 gives me
> 136048 bytes. How comes this differs from the 129MB of drbd disk size
> or from the 117MB available on the disk ?
> So, the aim of the post is to know how to configure the maximum size
> of data possible to copy on the drbd partition ...
> Also, do you know whether a particular format
> (ext3|reiserfs|xfs|jfs|vfat|fat|nfs) is recommended for mounting drbd
> partitions ?
> Thanks a lot,
> Fabrice
man blockdev
--getsize
Print device capacity (in 512-byte sectors).
so I assume you get "136048 _K_ bytes" which is 132 MB.
df has _nothing_ (ok, at least not directly) to do with all this, is
shows the _filesystem_ available, used, free spaces, it does not show
the file system "overhead", i.e. space used for journal, directory,
inode tables, attributes and stuff.
the easy and recommended way is to not try and calculate,
but let mkfs do that for you: you create the drbd, and then you
mkfs /dev/drbd0
that is it.
depending on what you want, ext3, reiser, xfs, maybe jfs, are the
filesystems to use on top of drbd.
I personaly dislike reiserfs, but that is not at all a technical reason.
xfs is a beast, and I try to avoid it, but if you have huge filesystems,
there is probably not much choice.
I have no real-world experience with jfs.
using fat-based filesystems with linux (or at all, for that matter) is
complete nonsense.
nfs is not a filesystem.
hope that helps.
--
: Lars Ellenberg Tel +43-1-8178292-0 :
: LINBIT Information Technologies GmbH Fax +43-1-8178292-82 :
: Schoenbrunner Str. 244, A-1120 Vienna/Europe http://www.linbit.com :
__
please use the "List-Reply" function of your email client.