| To: | Chris Murphy <lists@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> |
|---|---|
| Subject: | Re: xfs corrupted |
| From: | Emmanuel Florac <eflorac@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx> |
| Date: | Tue, 15 Oct 2013 21:52:51 +0200 |
| Cc: | "xfs@xxxxxxxxxxx" <xfs@xxxxxxxxxxx> |
| Delivered-to: | xfs@xxxxxxxxxxx |
| In-reply-to: | <F0730252-EF33-4452-957A-FA33DAD43913@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> |
| Organization: | Intellique |
| References: | <1381826507281-35009.post@xxxxxxxxxxxxx> <20131015203434.2f336fd8@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx> <525D8D67.2090301@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> <F0730252-EF33-4452-957A-FA33DAD43913@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> |
Le Tue, 15 Oct 2013 13:07:22 -0600 vous Ãcriviez: > That is very low RAM for a system with two big arrays attached. So if > repair finds it needs to repair something it's going to take a long > time. > http://xfs.org/index.php/XFS_FAQ#Q:_Which_factors_influence_the_memory_usage_of_xfs_repair.3F With a recent xfs_repair (3.x) it's large enough. I've checked similar arrays recently on 4 GB machines in a couple of minutes. -- ------------------------------------------------------------------------ Emmanuel Florac | Direction technique | Intellique | <eflorac@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx> | +33 1 78 94 84 02 ------------------------------------------------------------------------ |
| <Prev in Thread] | Current Thread | [Next in Thread> |
|---|---|---|
| ||
| Previous by Date: | Re: projid32bit=1 default in xfsprogs-3.2.0, Christoph Hellwig |
|---|---|
| Next by Date: | Re: xfs corrupted, Stefanita Rares Dumitrescu |
| Previous by Thread: | Re: xfs corrupted, Chris Murphy |
| Next by Thread: | Re: xfs corrupted, Emmanuel Florac |
| Indexes: | [Date] [Thread] [Top] [All Lists] |