| To: | Carsten Aulbert <carsten.aulbert@xxxxxxxxxx> |
|---|---|
| Subject: | Re: Map a disk LBA to filename? |
| From: | Dave Chinner <david@xxxxxxxxxxxxx> |
| Date: | Tue, 28 Oct 2008 18:21:05 +1100 |
| Cc: | Michal Soltys <nozo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx>, xfs@xxxxxxxxxxx |
| In-reply-to: | <4906BB32.8080403@xxxxxxxxxx> |
| Mail-followup-to: | Carsten Aulbert <carsten.aulbert@xxxxxxxxxx>, Michal Soltys <nozo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx>, xfs@xxxxxxxxxxx |
| References: | <4905A3FB.6080709@xxxxxxxxxx> <20081027114945.GE4985@disturbed> <4905B48A.8010108@xxxxxxxxxx> <4905BC13.3030402@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx> <20081027233516.GG4985@disturbed> <4906BB32.8080403@xxxxxxxxxx> |
| User-agent: | Mutt/1.5.18 (2008-05-17) |
On Tue, Oct 28, 2008 at 08:11:46AM +0100, Carsten Aulbert wrote: > Hi Dave et al > > Dave Chinner wrote: > > > Blockget - yes it will. It just does the traversal internally to > > build the mapping. With large filesystems xfs_db can run out of > > memory building the mapping, which is why I've used the > > explicit traverse+xfs_bmap method in the past.... > > How expensive is this operation (rule of thumb)? We will mostly use this > on compute nodes where the partition is 500-750 GB large and the node > has 8 GB of memory. For the simple test where I apparently hit thin air > I have not seen anything bad in terms of memory consumption. Shouldn't be a problem with a filesystem that size. It's when you're dealing with tens of terabytes in a single filesystem that it can be a problem... Cheers, Dave. -- Dave Chinner david@xxxxxxxxxxxxx |
| <Prev in Thread] | Current Thread | [Next in Thread> |
|---|---|---|
| ||
| Previous by Date: | Re: [PATCH 7/7] split up xlog_recover_process_iunlinks, Dave Chinner |
|---|---|
| Next by Date: | Re: Map a disk LBA to filename?, Carsten Aulbert |
| Previous by Thread: | Re: Map a disk LBA to filename?, Carsten Aulbert |
| Next by Thread: | Re: Map a disk LBA to filename?, Carsten Aulbert |
| Indexes: | [Date] [Thread] [Top] [All Lists] |