xfs
[Top] [All Lists]

Re: xfs_rapair memory requirement per TB

To: xfs@xxxxxxxxxxx
Subject: Re: xfs_rapair memory requirement per TB
From: Ralf Gross <Ralf-Lists@xxxxxxxxxxxx>
Date: Thu, 24 Jan 2008 17:07:14 +0100
In-reply-to: <1201189816.32649.358.camel@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
References: <1201042882.32649.256.camel@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> <op.t5c3kfub3jf8g2@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> <20080123085339.GB12435@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> <20080124002828.GC155259@xxxxxxx> <op.t5euakap3jf8g2@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> <1201189816.32649.358.camel@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
Sender: xfs-bounce@xxxxxxxxxxx
User-agent: Mutt/1.5.9i
Rene Salmon schrieb:
> ...
> > Right now, I can repair a 9TB filesystem with ~150 million inodes
> > in 2GB of RAM without going to swap using xfs_repair 2.9.4 and
> > with no custom/tuning/config options.
> 
> Thanks. That is great news about the memory improvements.  We currently
> run SLES 10 SP1 which comes with:
> 
> hpcxe005:# xfs_repair -V
> xfs_repair version 2.8.16
> 
> others come with:
> 
> hpcxe001:~ # xfs_repair -V
> xfs_repair version 2.9.2
> 
> 
> Did the memory improvements make it into 2.8.16? How about 2.9.2? If not
> i take it we can download the latest source and just have the 2.9.4
> xfs_repair binary laying around in case we ever need to use it.  Would
> using a 2.9.4 xfs_repair binary on a 2.8.16 created xfs file system
> cause any problems?

I did this today. Compiled 2.9.5 on debian etch and put it in
/opt/xfsprogs. Just in case I need it.

On #xfs I got the answer that xfs_check and xfs_repair should be fine
for an fs that was created with an older mkfs.xfs. 

Ralf


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