[Top] [All Lists]

Re: stable xfs

To: Ming Zhang <mingz@xxxxxxxxxxx>
Subject: Re: stable xfs
From: Chris Wedgwood <cw@xxxxxxxx>
Date: Wed, 19 Jul 2006 23:15:27 -0700
Cc: Peter Grandi <pg_xfs@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>, Linux XFS <linux-xfs@xxxxxxxxxxx>
In-reply-to: <1153314670.2691.14.camel@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
References: <1153150223.4532.24.camel@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> <17595.47312.720883.451573@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> <1153262166.2669.267.camel@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> <17597.27469.834961.186850@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> <1153272044.2669.282.camel@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> <17598.2129.999932.67127@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> <1153314670.2691.14.camel@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
Sender: xfs-bounce@xxxxxxxxxxx
On Wed, Jul 19, 2006 at 09:11:10AM -0400, Ming Zhang wrote:

> what kind of "ram vs fs" size ratio here will be a safe/good/proper
> one?

it depends very much on what you are doing

> any rule of thumb? thanks!
> hope not 1:1. :)

i recent dealt with a corrupted filesystem that xfs_repair needed over
1GB to deal with --- the kicker is the filesystem was only 20GB, so
that's 20:1 for xfs_repair

i suspect that was anomalous though and that some bug or quirk of
their fs cause xfs_repair to behave badly (that said, i'd had to have
to repair an 8TB fs fill of maildir email boxes, which i know some
people have)

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