| 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> |
|---|---|---|
| ||
| Previous by Date: | Re: xfs_check running out of memory, Nathan Scott |
|---|---|
| Next by Date: | Re: [PATCH 5/7] XFS: Unicode case-insensitive lookup implementation, Eric Sandeen |
| Previous by Thread: | Re: xfs_check running out of memory, Nathan Scott |
| Next by Thread: | Re: xfs_check running out of memory, Nathan Scott |
| Indexes: | [Date] [Thread] [Top] [All Lists] |