Message-ID: <42F90DC5.9070702@catalyst.net.nz>
Date: Wed, 10 Aug 2005 08:10:45 +1200
From: Steve Wray <stevew-lists@catalyst.net.nz>
User-Agent: Mozilla Thunderbird 0.9 (X11/20041103)
MIME-Version: 1.0
To: linux-xfs@oss.sgi.com
Subject: Re: XFS repair problem
References: <001001c59bfb$1fe7aae0$0400a8c0@LocalHost> <42F74B6D.8060002@gmx.net> <00d801c59c20$e0354080$0400a8c0@LocalHost> <42F798AF.5080505@gmx.net> <20050809074858.B25981667@melbourne.sgi.com> <005301c59c7d$2eedab20$0400a8c0@LocalHost> <20050809120823.E13484145@melbourne.sgi.com>
In-Reply-To: <20050809120823.E13484145@melbourne.sgi.com>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Sender: linux-xfs-bounce@oss.sgi.com
Errors-to: linux-xfs-bounce@oss.sgi.com
Precedence: bulk
Status: O
Content-Length: 1030
Lines: 28

David Chinner wrote:
> On Tue, Aug 09, 2005 at 02:56:28AM +0200, djani22@dynamicweb.hu wrote:
> 
>>More info:
>>
>>I try xfs_check and xfs_ncheck (and more progs) with +200GB swap, but no
>>different!
>>less than 1 second and get : out of memory.
> 
[snip]
> Your filesystem (8TiB) may simply bee too large for your system to
> be able to repair. Try mounting it on a 64bit system with more RAM
> in it and repairing it from there.

Sorry, but is this a joke?

Just checking because it seems quite unhelpful to suggest that one
should remove a drive and install it in a machine with a fairly specific
hardware spec to repair a filesystem.

Surely xfs could/should have a repair mode that actually works on the
hardware that the filesystem is installed on?

Alternatively, so that others can avoid the situation of having to go
and get their hands on a 64 bit machine to repair their xfs filesystems,
is there a cutoff point heuristic? Ie: how big does an xfs filesystem
have to be for it to require a 64 bit architecture to fix?