| To: | xfs@xxxxxxxxxxx |
|---|---|
| Subject: | Re: xfsrepair memory consumption |
| From: | "Daniele P." <daniele@xxxxxxxxxxxx> |
| Date: | Wed, 21 Mar 2007 12:08:27 +0100 |
| In-reply-to: | <200703210843.TAA08491@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> |
| Organization: | Interline |
| References: | <200703210843.TAA08491@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> |
| Sender: | xfs-bounce@xxxxxxxxxxx |
| User-agent: | KMail/1.9.5 |
On Wednesday 21 March 2007 09:48, Barry Naujok wrote: > This could be libxfs caching in action. > > Another option you can try is: > > -o bhash=256 > > Also, -M and -P options may reduce memory consumption. > I recommend -M (I'm in the middle of making that default). Hi Barry, In the previous test I already used the -M option (no thread). Using also -P and -o bhash=256 make the memory usage of the new version of xfs_repair close to the old version with no option for phases 1-5. This is really useful. Phase 6 still uses little more memory (killed!). I will add more memory and will test later. Thanks, Daniele P. |
| <Prev in Thread] | Current Thread | [Next in Thread> |
|---|---|---|
| ||
| Previous by Date: | Re: xfsrepair memory consumption, Daniele P. |
|---|---|
| Next by Date: | Re: [RFC][PATCH] sys_fallocate() system call, Amit K. Arora |
| Previous by Thread: | Re: xfsrepair memory consumption, Daniele P. |
| Next by Thread: | Re: xfsrepair memory consumption, Chris Wedgwood |
| Indexes: | [Date] [Thread] [Top] [All Lists] |