[Lustre-discuss] e2fsck-wc4 speed

[Samuel Aparicio]

vm stats suggest e2fsck is needing upto 153Gb of memory space on this particular lustre OST, I am thinking we may just upgrade the server to 192Gb of memory and see if that solves the issue.?
does anyone on the newsgroup have insight into calculation the expected e2fsck memory usage to know if that would be enough?


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/20120705/5fdb2b2f/attachment.htm>