From owner-freebsd-fs@FreeBSD.ORG Tue Jul 8 21:26:18 2008 Return-Path: Delivered-To: freebsd-fs@freebsd.org Received: from mx1.freebsd.org (mx1.freebsd.org [IPv6:2001:4f8:fff6::34]) by hub.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 7C1A5106567B for ; Tue, 8 Jul 2008 21:26:18 +0000 (UTC) (envelope-from bakul@bitblocks.com) Received: from mail.bitblocks.com (mail.bitblocks.com [64.142.15.60]) by mx1.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 63A998FC19 for ; Tue, 8 Jul 2008 21:26:18 +0000 (UTC) (envelope-from bakul@bitblocks.com) Received: from bitblocks.com (localhost.bitblocks.com [127.0.0.1]) by mail.bitblocks.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id C606C5B75; Tue, 8 Jul 2008 14:26:17 -0700 (PDT) To: juri_mian@yahoo.com In-reply-to: Your message of "Tue, 08 Jul 2008 14:17:57 PDT." <336596.22193.qm@web45608.mail.sp1.yahoo.com> Date: Tue, 08 Jul 2008 14:26:17 -0700 From: Bakul Shah Message-Id: <20080708212617.C606C5B75@mail.bitblocks.com> Cc: freebsd-fs@freebsd.org, Julian Elischer Subject: Re: 24 TB UFS2 reality check ? X-BeenThere: freebsd-fs@freebsd.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.5 Precedence: list List-Id: Filesystems List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Tue, 08 Jul 2008 21:26:18 -0000 On Tue, 08 Jul 2008 14:17:57 PDT Juri Mianovich 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.