xfs
[Top] [All Lists]

Re: xfs_check running out of memory

To: nscott@xxxxxxxxxx
Subject: Re: xfs_check running out of memory
From: "Fong Vang" <sudoyang@xxxxxxxxx>
Date: Thu, 3 Apr 2008 16:23:22 -0700
Cc: xfs@xxxxxxxxxxx
Dkim-signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=beta; h=domainkey-signature:received:received:message-id:date:from:to:subject:cc:in-reply-to:mime-version:content-type:references; bh=XxH+D4P/f/bt8u8A4HHIIsn+4QML4lctBt36xhxmpQs=; b=cx7RfC+8vcXJlZ+6ivxoEzg1O8svIg6yfCQ0omNpJSpL9nLR/prOeUbffi6vq9eTlWinfJO3ia7V/L/eXCZ+sFwSDaFi+aYEGQaU4qxLUfXcGbsL8bgyAcjJ4Yw1Dz941UKtQsUxypToTg1wWxKQ81rP5hl5y4/0KTblacp3KDs=
Domainkey-signature: a=rsa-sha1; c=nofws; d=gmail.com; s=beta; h=message-id:date:from:to:subject:cc:in-reply-to:mime-version:content-type:references; b=cYNmcnb6DWanuktT3tHz95Lg9HITipDLQ1skz+xDq33wSTmYmF9jUDJgBxwDqXfBxVcwqFINnEfiHib+A5vWQbBwwq9UOpONPrAeZ00txTdTRexcMaxy892fH8u34YqCKz/WAIry+7Uwu+o7nrTSMu+MvbxdEo+RkajmTRycAkU=
In-reply-to: <1207264560.21048.153.camel@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
References: <4f52331f0804031556n1f00e435g3273c516aacc5d95@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx> <1207263793.21048.150.camel@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> <4f52331f0804031611u30e706ddk10aa7a4d011df6a2@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx> <1207264560.21048.153.camel@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
Sender: xfs-bounce@xxxxxxxxxxx
good to know.  Doesn't xfs_check also repair?  with xfs_repair -n, this
doesn't do any repair.  SO the right approach on big volumes would be to run
xfs_repair -n first to detect problem then xfs_repair to fix?

thank you for the info.  much appreciated.  just, curious.  where did you
get this info?

On Thu, Apr 3, 2008 at 4:16 PM, Nathan Scott <nscott@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote:

> On Thu, 2008-04-03 at 16:11 -0700, Fong Vang wrote:
> >
> > if that's the case then why is it running out of memory?  This is a
> > 6.5TB file systems with millions of files.  The system has 24GB of
> > RAM.  It needs to hold everything in memory?
>
> xfs_check has 3 per-fs-block arrays that are held all in memory, IIRC.
> Use xfs_repair -n, which has been revamped to scale a whole lot better
> than check.
>
> --
> Nathan
>
>


[[HTML alternate version deleted]]


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