Ric Wheeler wrote:
On 10/27/2009 08:50 PM, Richard Scobie wrote:
Majed B. wrote:
Indeed xfs_repair doesn't require the abusive amount of memory
xfs_check requires.
I've been a happy XFS user for a few years now, but the fact the
xfsprogs aren't being maintained properly and xfs_check is still a
failure, I'm considering other alternatives.
This should change soon, see the September entry:
http://xfs.org/index.php/XFS_Status_Updates
"On the userspace side a large patch series to reduce the memory usage
in xfs_repair to acceptable levels was posted, but not yet merged."
Regards,
Richard
There are several people still actively working on both XFS & its tools
and I am sure that they are interested in hearing about issues :-)
ric
FWIW, this is merged now, but not yet in a usable release.
Still, existing xfs_repair has much better memory footprint than
xfs_check, and it is the tool you want to use whether you are just
checking (with -n) or repairing.
xfs_check is more or less deprecated; it is known to have large memory
requirements, and xfs_repair is the tool to use.
-Eric
--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-raid" in
the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
