xfs
[Top] [All Lists]

Re: RHEL ES 4

To: "evilninja@xxxxxxx" <evilninja@xxxxxxx>
Subject: Re: RHEL ES 4
From: Eric Sandeen <sandeen@xxxxxxx>
Date: Fri, 18 Nov 2005 12:10:19 -0600
Cc: linux-xfs@xxxxxxxxxxx
In-reply-to: <437E053E.8090704@gmx.net>
References: <32927.68.52.44.223.1132279914.squirrel@66.238.243.52> <437D6935.2090905@sgi.com> <1132326431.12165.9.camel@rwthompson.landmarkdigital.com> <437DFBD8.3070106@gmx.net> <437E0297.40807@sgi.com> <437E053E.8090704@gmx.net>
Sender: linux-xfs-bounce@xxxxxxxxxxx
User-agent: Mozilla Thunderbird 1.0.6-1.1.fc4 (X11/20050720)
evilninja@xxxxxxx wrote:
Eric Sandeen schrieb:

Oh, repair on a 300T filesystem -wil-l be painful anywhere, I think, unfortunately.


hm, painful yes, but hopefully not impossible? otherwise if sth. goes wrong on a 300TB fs the only way to fix it would be restoring from backup, no matter how tiny the corruption might be (and xfs_repair could fix it easliy if only the volume was not so big)....


The time & memory requirements for repair on a filesystem of this size are currently extremely large... there have been some rules of thumb for time/memory requirements on this list before, but I don't have them offhand...


-Eric


<Prev in Thread] Current Thread [Next in Thread>