On Wed, Feb 11, 2015 at 6:43 AM, Janne Johansson <icepic...@gmail.com> wrote:
> You can invent how many journals and whatevers you like to hope to prevent > the state from being inconsistent, but broken or breaking sectors will > sooner or later force you to run over all files and read/check them, and > in that case > you will need lots of ram anyhow. > The data in this thread seems to show that this is not true. 4TB fs with 1,642 files = 83MB of RAM, ~60 seconds 4TB fs with 3,900,811 files = 137MB of RAM, > 30 minutes (Sure, on some platforms, 137MB is a lot of RAM but I don't think we're talking about.) Granted it's only two data points, but when number of files went up by 2375x, time to fsck went up by ~60x however RAM usage only went up by 1.7x. It seems as if increase in number of files requires only a modest increase in RAM. (Small disclaimer: we don't know platforms involved). On Wed, Feb 11, 2015 at 8:58 AM, Jan Stary <h...@stare.cz> wrote: > FAQ4 still says > > If you make very large partitions, keep in mind that performing > filesystem checks using fsck(8) requires about 1M of RAM per gigabyte of > filesystem size > ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^ > > Does that still apply? > A 4TB filesystem would mean 4GB of RAM, and neither fsck in the examples above was close to that. -- andrew fabbro and...@fabbro.org blog: https://raindog308.com
