From owner-freebsd-current@FreeBSD.ORG Thu Feb 17 21:45:02 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 CA02016A4CF for ; Thu, 17 Feb 2005 21:45:02 +0000 (GMT) Received: from mh1.centtech.com (moat3.centtech.com [207.200.51.50]) by mx1.FreeBSD.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 018D843D41 for ; Thu, 17 Feb 2005 21:45:02 +0000 (GMT) (envelope-from anderson@centtech.com) Received: from [10.177.171.220] (neutrino.centtech.com [10.177.171.220]) by mh1.centtech.com (8.13.1/8.13.1) with ESMTP id j1HLj1hG009589; Thu, 17 Feb 2005 15:45:01 -0600 (CST) (envelope-from anderson@centtech.com) Message-ID: <42151059.30107@centtech.com> Date: Thu, 17 Feb 2005 15:44:57 -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: "Chad Leigh -- Shire.Net LLC" References: <20050216215325.9201.qmail@web26805.mail.ukl.yahoo.com> <4213C1FB.6030802@centtech.com> <20050216225528.GB2787@odin.ac.hmc.edu> <4213D099.3020504@centtech.com> <20050216230709.GA22840@odin.ac.hmc.edu> <4214F538.30409@centtech.com> <20050217195559.GA6201@odin.ac.hmc.edu> <42150AB1.9010800@centtech.com> In-Reply-To: Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Virus-Scanned: ClamAV 0.82/707/Wed Feb 16 16:00:07 2005 on mh1.centtech.com X-Virus-Status: Clean cc: FreeBSD Current 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: Thu, 17 Feb 2005 21:45:03 -0000 Chad Leigh -- Shire.Net LLC wrote: > > On Feb 17, 2005, at 2:20 PM, Eric Anderson wrote: > >> Brooks Davis wrote: >> >>> On Thu, Feb 17, 2005 at 01:49:12PM -0600, Eric Anderson wrote: >>> >>>> Brooks Davis wrote: >>>> [..snip..] >>>> >>>>>>>>>> I've just built an enormous 10TB filesystem. When >>>>>>>>>> trying to newfs the disk, it bombed with something >>>>>>>>>> like "cannot allocate memory" after something like >>>>>>>>>> 23xxxxxxxxx sectors.. I noticed disklabel complains >>>>>>>>>> about disks with more than 2^32-1 sectors not being >>>>>>>>>> supported.. >>>> >>>> >>>> [..snip..] >>>> >>>>> In that case, you probably don't actually have a bsdlabel there. It's >>>>> not longer required with geom since you can newfs disks. >>>>> >>>>> -- Brooks >>>>> >>>> >>>> Ok - but I'm still wondering why newfs can't newfs.. Here's the real >>>> error pasted in: >>>> >>>> a newfs -U /dev/vinum/plex/raid.p0 gives: >>>> ... >>>> 23425543840, 23425920160, 23426296480, 23426672800, 23427049120, >>>> 23427425440, 23427801760, 23428178080, 23428554400, 23428930720, >>>> 23429307040, 23429683360, 23430059680, 23430436000, 23430812320, >>>> 23431188640, 23431564960, 23431941280, 23432317600, 23432693920, >>>> 23433070240, 23433446560, 23433822880, 23434199200, 23434575520, >>>> 23434951840, 23435328160, 23435704480, 23436080800, 23436457120, >>>> 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. >> >> >> During the newfs, the process only uses 2424K of memory (1825K >> resident). I have several hundred MB of memory free the whole time, >> through and after the newfs. >> >> Eric >> > > check the *process limits* is what Brooks was suggesting. Not the > system actual resources... > best > Chad Well, I guess I'm wondering how it could be hitting any limit? Which limit would I be looking at, if it's memory usage is so low.. Sorry if I'm missing something here, but it just doesn't seem evident that a process could be hitting a limit, if it isn't showing anything close in ps output or top.. Eric -- ------------------------------------------------------------------------ Eric Anderson Sr. Systems Administrator Centaur Technology I have seen the future and it is just like the present, only longer. ------------------------------------------------------------------------