From owner-freebsd-current@FreeBSD.ORG Fri Feb 18 15:10:12 2005 Return-Path: Delivered-To: freebsd-current@freebsd.org Received: from mx1.FreeBSD.org (mx1.freebsd.org [216.136.204.125]) by hub.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id EA9AC16A4CF; Fri, 18 Feb 2005 15:10:12 +0000 (GMT) Received: from mh2.centtech.com (moat3.centtech.com [207.200.51.50]) by mx1.FreeBSD.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 645AE43D58; Fri, 18 Feb 2005 15:10:10 +0000 (GMT) (envelope-from anderson@centtech.com) Received: from [10.177.171.220] (neutrino.centtech.com [10.177.171.220]) by mh2.centtech.com (8.13.1/8.13.1) with ESMTP id j1IFA1rw081339; Fri, 18 Feb 2005 09:10:01 -0600 (CST) (envelope-from anderson@centtech.com) Message-ID: <42160545.6020204@centtech.com> Date: Fri, 18 Feb 2005 09:09:57 -0600 From: Eric Anderson User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; U; FreeBSD i386; en-US; rv:1.7.5) Gecko/20050210 X-Accept-Language: en-us, en MIME-Version: 1.0 To: Don Lewis References: <200502180005.j1I05BbL031106@gw.catspoiler.org> In-Reply-To: <200502180005.j1I05BbL031106@gw.catspoiler.org> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Virus-Scanned: ClamAV 0.82/708/Thu Feb 17 16:37:03 2005 on mh2.centtech.com X-Virus-Status: Clean cc: freebsd-current@FreeBSD.org Subject: Re: newfs limits? 10TB filesystem max? X-BeenThere: freebsd-current@freebsd.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.1 Precedence: list List-Id: Discussions about the use of FreeBSD-current List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Fri, 18 Feb 2005 15:10:13 -0000 Don Lewis wrote: [..snip..] >>>23436833440, 23437209760, 23437586080, 23437962400, 23438338720,newfs: >>>wtfs: 65536 bytes at sector 23438715040: Cannot allocate memory >>> >>>But: >>>newfs -U -s 23438338720 /dev/vinum/plex/raid.p0 >>>works.. So I'm losing the last part of my partition.. >> >>I'm guessing you are hitting the process datasize limit with newfs. You >>should be able to raise it a bit from the default. Be warned, that fsck >>has much higher memory requirements so recovery may be difficult if not >>impossiable without a 64-bit machine. > > > I don't know of any reason that newfs would need a lot of memory. I > would think that it's memory usage would be independent of file system > size. > > I just looked at the code, and the error message seems to be triggered > by bwrite() in libufs failing. There is a potential pair of calls in > malloc()/free() in bwrite(), but I think the more likely problem is that > pwrite() is failing. > > I seem to to recall seeing a recent kernel commit that changed an ENOMEM > error return to something else like EFBIG or ENOSPC. Anything I can do to help debug this? Eric -- ------------------------------------------------------------------------ Eric Anderson Sr. Systems Administrator Centaur Technology I have seen the future and it is just like the present, only longer. ------------------------------------------------------------------------