From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Sunil Mushran Date: Fri, 22 Apr 2011 17:22:25 -0700 Subject: [Ocfs2-devel] [Ocfs2-users] How long for an fsck? In-Reply-To: <201104230024.35576.guerrero@ice.cat> References: <201104211543.29963.guerrero@ice.cat> <201104211946.32493.guerrero@ice.cat> <4DB1F431.5070003@oracle.com> <201104230024.35576.guerrero@ice.cat> Message-ID: <4DB21BC1.8080704@oracle.com> List-Id: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit To: ocfs2-devel@oss.oracle.com On 04/22/2011 03:24 PM, Josep Guerrero wrote: >> How long did the debugfs output take? > I think about 30 minutes. No more than 50 for sure (just by looking at the > times of the mails). > >> Did fsck eventually finish? > No. I had to cancel it after it stayed 24 hours in the same state, showing the > same message. It never moved beyond "Pass 0a", and always was using 100% CPU > in one core. I don't know if it would have finished on its own. > >> BTW, you said one of the cores was at 100%. What does top show? >> Is fsck the main contributor or is some other process spinning? > It was fsck (I kept a top opened the whole time, and fsck always was around > 99% CPU usage). > >> I have a theory as to why it is slow. But I would like some confirmation. >> My theory had fsck have high wait%. I seem to be missing something. > I didn't look at the wait%, but I checked the physical disk load with iotop > and it was very low, so it didn't look like fsck was being slow because of the > disk. In the filesystem I successfully "fscked" before (the 3 TB one that took > less than 60 minutes), it started doing something similar (very high CPU > usage, low disk load) but after several minutes (when the rest of the messages > after "Pass 0a" appeared), it did just the opposite: low CPU use, high disk > load. Both filesystems are physically on the same set of disks (the 16TB > logical volume is an striped LVM volume that fills about 75% of the 21 physical > disks and the 3TB is another striped LVM volume filling the remaining space of > the same disks) so I don't think it's a problem with the physical devices (of > course, I could be wrong). File a bz. This will need some investigation. BTW, how much memory does your box have?