On 2/19/12 7:16 AM, Michael Monnerie wrote: > Am Freitag, 17. Februar 2012, 18:17:46 schrieb Eric Sandeen: >> http://xfs.org/index.php/XFS_FAQ#Q:_Which_factors_influence_the_memory >> _usage_of_xfs_repair.3F > > I tried that, and it said "use 434": That's megabytes, FWIW. > xfs_repair -n -vv -m 1 /dev/mapper/vg_orion-lv_orion_data > Phase 1 - find and verify superblock... > - max_mem = 1024, icount = 339648, imem = 1326, dblock = > 805304256, dmem = 393214 > Required memory for repair is greater that the maximum specified with > the -m option. Please increase it to at least 434. > > But when I tried with > # xfs_repair -n -vv -m 434 /dev/mapper/vg_orion-lv_orion_data > it said the same again. It only worked with 435: > # xfs_repair -n -vv -m 435 /dev/mapper/vg_orion-lv_orion_data > (is that what you call an off-by-1 error?) Yep, but really not too serious, I guess, still worth fixing though. It's only used to try to enforce the bare minimum - in reality you'd want more than that. > Maybe that has been fixed already? This is > # xfs_repair -V > xfs_repair Version 3.1.6 > > BTW, this XFS is 3219644160 KB (3,2TB), used 2,9TB, has (df -i) 325364 > inodes used, 293884 files in 31643 dirs. It seems mem usage primarily > comes from inodes, not from the size of the filesystem. _(" - max_mem = %lu, icount = %" PRIu64 ", imem = %" PRIu64 ", db lock = %" PRIu64 ", dmem = %" PRIu64 "\n"), max_mem, mp->m_sb.sb_icount, mp->m_sb.sb_icount >> (10 - 2), mp->m_sb.sb_dblocks, mp->m_sb.sb_dblocks >> (10 + 1)); so yes, inodes in use count for more in the approximation. -Eric _______________________________________________ xfs mailing list xfs@xxxxxxxxxxx http://oss.sgi.com/mailman/listinfo/xfs
