From: "Daniel Taylor" Subject: RE: fsck performance. Date: Thu, 24 Feb 2011 16:26:16 -0800 Message-ID: <25B374CC0D9DFB4698BB331F82CD0CF20D6161@wdscexbe08.sc.wdc.com> References: <20110222102056.GH21917@bitwizard.nl> <20110222133652.GI21917@bitwizard.nl> <20110222135431.GK21917@bitwizard.nl> <386B23FA-CE6E-4D9C-9799-C121B2E8C3BB@dilger.ca> <20110222221304.GH2924@thunk.org> <20110223044427.GM21917@bitwizard.nl> <20110223205309.GA16661@bitwizard.nl> <20110224072945.GE16661@bitwizard.nl> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8BIT Cc: To: unlisted-recipients:; (no To-header on input) Return-path: Received: from wdscspam2.wdc.com ([129.253.55.43]:17094 "EHLO wdscspam2.wdc.com" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1753409Ab1BYAhR convert rfc822-to-8bit (ORCPT ); Thu, 24 Feb 2011 19:37:17 -0500 Content-class: urn:content-classes:message Sender: linux-ext4-owner@vger.kernel.org List-ID: > -----Original Message----- > From: linux-ext4-owner@vger.kernel.org > [mailto:linux-ext4-owner@vger.kernel.org] On Behalf Of Rogier Wolff > Sent: Wednesday, February 23, 2011 11:30 PM > To: Andreas Dilger > Cc: linux-ext4@vger.kernel.org > Subject: Re: fsck performance. > > On Wed, Feb 23, 2011 at 03:24:18PM -0700, Andreas Dilger wrote: > ... > > Second: e2fsck is too fragile as it is. It should be able to handle > big filesystems on little systems. I have a puny little 2GHz Athlon > system that currently has 3T of disk storage and 1G RAM. Embedded > Linux systems can be running those amounts of storage with only 64 > or 128 Mb of RAM. I have to second this comment. One of our NAS has 256 MBytes of RAM (and they wanted 64) with a 3TB disk, 2.996TB of which is an EXT4 file system. With our 2.6.32.11 kernel and e2fsprogs version 1.41.3-1, all I get is a segfault when I run fsck.ext4.