On March 27, 2012, Royce Souther wrote: > Okay I am looking at XFS. Two draw backs that need to be worked around. XFS > can grow but cannot shrink, not a big deal as long as I leave one SATA port > unused for a future drive to swap out an old one. The other draw back is > that to run xfs_check (XFS version of fsck) you need A SHIT LOAD OF RAM or > a very, very big swap file/partition. It looks like for every 2TB of > storage you need 20GB of swap and a day or two to run xfs_check. > > I am going to try XFS. It still sounds like a good thing. >
xfsprogs does require a lot of memory for some utilities, but they have been getting better and better with more recent versions. Their examples show 16Tb with 50 million files requiring just over 2GB of memory. It seems that xfs_repair -n would do the same as xfs_check, and you can calculate the memory needed for xfs_repair to run : http://xfs.org/index.php/XFS_FAQ#Q:_Which_factors_influence_the_memory_usage_of_xfs_repair.3F -- Also, this older article (2008), has some useful information on some things: http://archive09.linux.com/feature/141404 xfs_db & xfs_fsr in particular ... it prompted me to check some servers I manage again. Andy
signature.asc
Description: This is a digitally signed message part.
_______________________________________________ clug-talk mailing list clug-talk@clug.ca http://clug.ca/mailman/listinfo/clug-talk_clug.ca Mailing List Guidelines (http://clug.ca/ml_guidelines.php) **Please remove these lines when replying
