From owner-freebsd-questions@FreeBSD.ORG Mon Nov 8 11:51:04 2010 Return-Path: Delivered-To: freebsd-questions@freebsd.org Received: from mx1.freebsd.org (mx1.freebsd.org [IPv6:2001:4f8:fff6::34]) by hub.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 0D3E3106564A for ; Mon, 8 Nov 2010 11:51:04 +0000 (UTC) (envelope-from freebsd-questions@m.gmane.org) Received: from lo.gmane.org (lo.gmane.org [80.91.229.12]) by mx1.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id B7DFA8FC17 for ; Mon, 8 Nov 2010 11:51:03 +0000 (UTC) Received: from list by lo.gmane.org with local (Exim 4.69) (envelope-from ) id 1PFQFa-0008Mo-Ji for freebsd-questions@freebsd.org; Mon, 08 Nov 2010 12:51:02 +0100 Received: from lara.cc.fer.hr ([161.53.72.113]) by main.gmane.org with esmtp (Gmexim 0.1 (Debian)) id 1AlnuQ-0007hv-00 for ; Mon, 08 Nov 2010 12:51:02 +0100 Received: from ivoras by lara.cc.fer.hr with local (Gmexim 0.1 (Debian)) id 1AlnuQ-0007hv-00 for ; Mon, 08 Nov 2010 12:51:02 +0100 X-Injected-Via-Gmane: http://gmane.org/ To: freebsd-questions@freebsd.org From: Ivan Voras Date: Mon, 08 Nov 2010 12:50:52 +0100 Lines: 22 Message-ID: References: Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit X-Complaints-To: usenet@dough.gmane.org X-Gmane-NNTP-Posting-Host: lara.cc.fer.hr User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; U; FreeBSD amd64; en-US; rv:1.9.2.12) Gecko/20101102 Thunderbird/3.1.6 In-Reply-To: X-Enigmail-Version: 1.1.2 Subject: Re: UFS X-BeenThere: freebsd-questions@freebsd.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.5 Precedence: list List-Id: User questions List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Mon, 08 Nov 2010 11:51:04 -0000 On 11/08/10 11:01, Samuel Martín 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.