[Lustre-discuss] e2fsck-wc4 speed

Samuel Aparicio saparicio at bccrc.ca
Thu Jul 5 12:06:34 PDT 2012

thanks for this. I wonder how much memory would be needed to fsck a 10Tb filesystem. any ideas about this?

Professor Samuel Aparicio BM BCh PhD FRCPath
Nan and Lorraine Robertson Chair UBC/BC Cancer Agency
675 West 10th, Vancouver V5Z 1L3, Canada.
office: +1 604 675 8200 lab website http://molonc.bccrc.ca

On Jul 5, 2012, at 11:31 AM, Brian J. Murrell wrote:

> On 12-07-05 02:20 PM, Samuel Aparicio wrote:
>> I wonder if using a scratch file would be any faster than having the system do the paging.
> At least with ext4, not in my experience.  I had a machine with a 1TB
> (very close to) full ext4 filesystem that I needed to fsck.
> Unfortunately this machine was still on a 32-bit kernel so, other than
> trying to shoehorn the 64-bit kernel in the only way I could fsck was to
> use scratch files since the data structures were too big to fit into the
> 32-bit architecture's available memory.
> I ended up giving up on using scratch files after a day or so of fsck
> running and shoehorned the 64-bit kernel in so that it could all be done
> in memory.  It only took a few hours at that point.
> Cheers,
> b.
> -- 
> Brian J. Murrell
> Senior Software Engineer
> Whamcloud, Inc.
> <signature.asc>_______________________________________________
> Lustre-discuss mailing list
> Lustre-discuss at lists.lustre.org
> http://lists.lustre.org/mailman/listinfo/lustre-discuss

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.lustre.org/pipermail/lustre-discuss-lustre.org/attachments/20120705/0365e0b7/attachment.htm>

More information about the lustre-discuss mailing list