Re: fsck shortcomings

From: Scott Long (scottl_at_freebsd.org)
Date: 11/29/04

  • Next message: Michael Nottebrock: "Re: fsck shortcomings" 
    Date: Sun, 28 Nov 2004 20:15:22 -0700
To: Michael Nottebrock <michaelnottebrock@gmx.net>

    Michael Nottebrock wrote:
    > I recently had a filesystem go bad on me in such a way that it was
    > recognized way bigger than it actually was, causing fsck to fail while
    > trying to allocate and equally astronomic amount of memory (and my
    > machine already had 1 Gig of mem + 2 Gig swap available).
    > I just newfs'd and I'm now in the process of restoring data, however, I
    > googled a bit on this and it seems that this kind of fs corruption is
    > occurring quite often, in particular due to power failures.

    Yes, very troubling. You said that the alternate superblocks didn't
    help?

    >
    > Is there really no way that fsck could be made smarter about dealing
    > with seemingly huge filesystems? Also, what kind of memory would be
    > required to fsck a _real_ 11TB filesystem?
    >

    More than you can address in 32 bits. Reducing the RAM footprint of
    fsck_ufs is something that desperately needs to be done, especially
    since it's now easy to trash crashdumps that are saved in swap because
    fsck is consuming so much memory.

    Scott
    _______________________________________________
    freebsd-current@freebsd.org mailing list
    http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-current
    To unsubscribe, send any mail to "freebsd-current-unsubscribe@freebsd.org"

  • Next message: Michael Nottebrock: "Re: fsck shortcomings"

    Relevant Pages