From owner-freebsd-arch@FreeBSD.ORG Wed Jan 5 06:57:34 2005 Return-Path: Delivered-To: freebsd-arch@freebsd.org Received: from mx1.FreeBSD.org (mx1.freebsd.org [216.136.204.125]) by hub.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 58EA216A4CE; Wed, 5 Jan 2005 06:57:34 +0000 (GMT) Received: from pimout2-ext.prodigy.net (pimout2-ext.prodigy.net [207.115.63.101]) by mx1.FreeBSD.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id E1B4B43D49; Wed, 5 Jan 2005 06:57:33 +0000 (GMT) (envelope-from julian@elischer.org) Received: from [192.168.1.102] (adsl-216-100-134-143.dsl.snfc21.pacbell.net [216.100.134.143])j056vOXO011736; Wed, 5 Jan 2005 01:57:29 -0500 Message-ID: <41DB8FD3.3030101@elischer.org> Date: Tue, 04 Jan 2005 22:57:23 -0800 From: Julian Elischer User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; U; FreeBSD i386; en-US; rv:1.8a3) Gecko/20041017 X-Accept-Language: en, hu MIME-Version: 1.0 To: "M. Warner Losh" References: <20050104224043.GM784@darkness.comp.waw.pl> <41DB2B24.6050005@elischer.org> <20050104.203502.85411551.imp@bsdimp.com> In-Reply-To: <20050104.203502.85411551.imp@bsdimp.com> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit cc: arch@freebsd.org cc: scottl@freebsd.org cc: pjd@freebsd.org Subject: Re: BigDisk project: du(1) 64bit clean. X-BeenThere: freebsd-arch@freebsd.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.1 Precedence: list List-Id: Discussion related to FreeBSD architecture List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Wed, 05 Jan 2005 06:57:34 -0000 M. Warner Losh wrote: > In message: <41DB2B24.6050005@elischer.org> > Julian Elischer writes: > : > : > : Pawel Jakub Dawidek wrote: > : > : >Hi. > : > > : >I want you to look at two patches which makes du(1) 64bit clean. > : >This work is part of the BigDisk project: > : > > : > http://www.freebsd.org/projects/bigdisk/ > : > > : > > : One thing that needs to be done is an 2ndary storage fsck. > : that doesn't try put everything in RAM. > : Basically this will mean extracting all the metadata from filesystems into > : files and running sort operations of various kinds on them > : to order the data in ways that allows consistencies to be checked. > : It will take a bit longer than a RAM fsck but maybe not as much as > : one might fear. > : We all remember those "sort a mag-tape larger than RAM" > : lessons from CS101 don't we? > : At least it doesn't have to be "in place" so merge sorts are OK. :-) > : > : why? > : > : A bitmap of 1TB of 512 byte records is 244MB so with a 4BG machine > : with 3GB available to the process you can't even fit the bitmaps into > : memory for a 12TB Filesystem let alone other metadata. > : > : Going to 2048 byte frags helps but you still run into a limit. > : last I tried it, you need about 600MB per TB of fileysstem to check. > : > : So I think a special fsck that uses files is a must for really big > : filesystems, unless they (the filesystems) can be broken up in > : a logical way (IBM did that many years ago I believe). > : I think you should add that to your list. > > I think that a big amount of this could be reduced by using simple > arrays rather than lists which are more memory efficient... > > Warner but that just puts the problem a bit further away.