Date: Mon, 8 Nov 2010 12:37:23 -0600 From: Adam Vande More <amvandemore@gmail.com> To: Ivan Voras <ivoras@freebsd.org> Cc: freebsd-questions@freebsd.org Subject: Re: UFS Message-ID: <AANLkTimiR=i8krkXsW62nbubkG1DS-T0Ng0FLM2cnw=1@mail.gmail.com> In-Reply-To: <ib8o6s$d8b$1@dough.gmane.org> References: <AANLkTimvUcsVz25m_JPBrAq-t3YtvT5p3_zWvHmbHR%2BP@mail.gmail.com> <ib8o6s$d8b$1@dough.gmane.org>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
On Mon, Nov 8, 2010 at 5:50 AM, Ivan Voras <ivoras@freebsd.org> wrote: > On 11/08/10 11:01, Samuel Mart=EDn Moro wrote: > > > In my opinion, the only chance to get back the data would be to plug an > > additional drive, make a huge swap file... > > Knowing that context switching, on such an amount of RAM ... that would > at > > least take days. > > > > > > In doubt: am I missing something? Is there an easier way? > > Basically, no. > > You can't expect fsck a 44 TB drive with 2 GB of RAM, there is too much > information to be kept while checking. > > However, IIRC there have been some committed patches in 7 and later > which reduced the amount of memory so going with at least 7-STABLE would > be better. > > It would of course be even better to go with 8-STABLE or wait for 9.0 > which should be released in several months and then either use UFS-SUJ > or ZFS. > Another option would to place UFS on top a gjournal then your fsck become much, much less intensive. However there are several problems with this suggestion as gjournal isn't available for your version, and adding gjourna= l to an existing FS is a non-trivial task and would probably not be feasible. Perhaps you could evaluate it for your next product build though. --=20 Adam Vande More
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?AANLkTimiR=i8krkXsW62nbubkG1DS-T0Ng0FLM2cnw=1>