Date: Tue, 08 Jul 2008 14:26:17 -0700 From: Bakul Shah <bakul@bitblocks.com> To: juri_mian@yahoo.com Cc: freebsd-fs@freebsd.org, Julian Elischer <julian@elischer.org> Subject: Re: 24 TB UFS2 reality check ? Message-ID: <20080708212617.C606C5B75@mail.bitblocks.com> In-Reply-To: Your message of "Tue, 08 Jul 2008 14:17:57 PDT." <336596.22193.qm@web45608.mail.sp1.yahoo.com>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
On Tue, 08 Jul 2008 14:17:57 PDT Juri Mianovich <juri_mian@yahoo.com> wrote: > > I vaguely recall it was more like 700MB of memory per > > Terabyte on a 50% filled UFS2. Things may have improved > > in the three years since I did that. I don't recall the time > > to fsck but it was pretty bad! That was the main reason I > > switched from UFS2. > > Why does fsck need to reserve all that memory in advance and hold it the enti > re fsck ? Is it necessary by definition, or could it be written to not requi > re that ? May be it can but why bother. It just feels wrong to have to check the entire FS state after a crash -- it doesn't scale.
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?20080708212617.C606C5B75>