From: Rogier Wolff Subject: Re: fsck performance. Date: Tue, 22 Feb 2011 14:36:52 +0100 Message-ID: <20110222133652.GI21917@bitwizard.nl> References: <20110220170931.GB3017@thunk.org> <20110220193406.GC3017@thunk.org> <20110220215531.GA21917@bitwizard.nl> <20110220222013.GA2849@thunk.org> <20110220231514.GC21917@bitwizard.nl> <20110220234131.GC4001@thunk.org> <20110222102056.GH21917@bitwizard.nl> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Cc: Andreas Dilger , Pawe?? Brodacki , Amir Goldstein , Ted Ts'o , linux-ext4@vger.kernel.org To: Rogier Wolff Return-path: Received: from dtp.xs4all.nl ([80.101.171.8]:57737 "HELO abra2.bitwizard.nl" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-FAIL) by vger.kernel.org with SMTP id S1752041Ab1BVNgy (ORCPT ); Tue, 22 Feb 2011 08:36:54 -0500 Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <20110222102056.GH21917@bitwizard.nl> Sender: linux-ext4-owner@vger.kernel.org List-ID: On Tue, Feb 22, 2011 at 11:20:56AM +0100, Rogier Wolff wrote: > I wouldn't be surprised if I'd need more than 3G of RAM. When I > extrapolated "more than a few days" it was at under 20% of the > filesystem and had already allocated on the order of 800Gb of > memory. Now I'm not entirely sure that this is fair: memory use seems > to go up quickly in the beginning, and then stabilize: as if it has > decided that 800M of memory use is "acceptable" and somehow uses a > different strategy once it hits that limit. OK. Good news. It's finished pass1. It is currently using about 2100Mb of RAM (ehh. mostly swap, I have only 1G in there). Here is the patch. Roger. -- ** R.E.Wolff@BitWizard.nl ** http://www.BitWizard.nl/ ** +31-15-2600998 ** ** Delftechpark 26 2628 XH Delft, The Netherlands. KVK: 27239233 ** *-- BitWizard writes Linux device drivers for any device you may have! --* Q: It doesn't work. A: Look buddy, doesn't work is an ambiguous statement. Does it sit on the couch all day? Is it unemployed? Please be specific! Define 'it' and what it isn't doing. --------- Adapted from lxrbot FAQ