From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Killian De Volder Subject: Re: Recovery after mkfs.ext4 on a ext4 Date: Mon, 23 Jun 2014 08:09:37 +0200 Message-ID: <53A7C4A1.4000603@scarlet.be> References: <539D555E.3050707@scarlet.be> <20140615132026.GC2180@thunk.org> <539E019C.6060600@scarlet.be> <20140615214403.GA1420@thunk.org> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Cc: linux-ext4@vger.kernel.org To: Theodore Ts'o Return-path: Received: from relay4-d.mail.gandi.net ([217.70.183.196]:49245 "EHLO relay4-d.mail.gandi.net" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1751310AbaFWGJm (ORCPT ); Mon, 23 Jun 2014 02:09:42 -0400 In-Reply-To: <20140615214403.GA1420@thunk.org> Sender: linux-ext4-owner@vger.kernel.org List-ID: On 15-06-14 23:44, Theodore Ts'o wrote: > >> Sometimes I think it's certain inodes causing the excessive memory usage cause. >> 20GiB sounds a lot when the normal -f fschk took less then 3GiB. (It's a 16TiB file system). >> But suppose it needs more binary maps when the filesystem is this corrupt ? > E2fsck needs a lot more memory when dealing with a file systems where > some blocks are claimed by multiple inodes. This is when pass > 1b/1c/1d are invoked. The e2fsck program also caches where the > directory blocks are located, but I doubt that's a particular concern > here. > > Regards, > - Ted It's still checking due to the high amount of ram it's using. However if I start a parallel check with -nf if find other errors the one with the high memory usage hasn't found yet ? Should I start a new one, or is this not advised ? As sometimes I think it's bad inodes causing artificial usage of memory. Kind regards, Killian De Volder