From owner-freebsd-current@FreeBSD.ORG Mon Nov 29 03:14:57 2004 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 0F13A16A4CE for ; Mon, 29 Nov 2004 03:14:57 +0000 (GMT) Received: from pooker.samsco.org (pooker.samsco.org [168.103.85.57]) by mx1.FreeBSD.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 9F2AB43D45 for ; Mon, 29 Nov 2004 03:14:56 +0000 (GMT) (envelope-from scottl@freebsd.org) Received: from [192.168.254.11] (junior-wifi.samsco.home [192.168.254.11]) (authenticated bits=0) by pooker.samsco.org (8.12.11/8.12.10) with ESMTP id iAT3IJ4M098933; Sun, 28 Nov 2004 20:18:19 -0700 (MST) (envelope-from scottl@freebsd.org) Message-ID: <41AA944A.5090109@freebsd.org> Date: Sun, 28 Nov 2004 20:15:22 -0700 From: Scott Long User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; U; FreeBSD i386; en-US; rv:1.7.2) Gecko/20040929 X-Accept-Language: en-us, en MIME-Version: 1.0 To: Michael Nottebrock References: <41AA8E00.2050401@gmx.net> In-Reply-To: <41AA8E00.2050401@gmx.net> X-Enigmail-Version: 0.86.1.0 X-Enigmail-Supports: pgp-inline, pgp-mime Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Spam-Status: No, hits=0.0 required=3.8 tests=none autolearn=no version=2.63 X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 2.63 (2004-01-11) on pooker.samsco.org cc: freebsd-current@freebsd.org Subject: Re: fsck shortcomings 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: Mon, 29 Nov 2004 03:14:57 -0000 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