From mboxrd@z Thu Jan  1 00:00:00 1970
From: Ric Wheeler <rwheeler@redhat.com>
Subject: Re: md software raid
Date: Tue, 27 Oct 2009 18:00:56 -0400
Message-ID: <4AE76D98.7000003@redhat.com>
References: <70ed7c3e0910271747o29e53a69l2b88de8d538284aa@mail.gmail.com> 	<20091028005303577.NTSS9287@cdptpa-omta02.mail.rr.com> <70ed7c3e0910271758r3f10b79fw99375299ed721f1e@mail.gmail.com> <4AE7955B.3020501@sauce.co.nz>
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1; format=flowed
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Return-path: <linux-raid-owner@vger.kernel.org>
In-Reply-To: <4AE7955B.3020501@sauce.co.nz>
Sender: linux-raid-owner@vger.kernel.org
To: Richard Scobie <richard@sauce.co.nz>
Cc: "Majed B." <majedb@gmail.com>, Leslie Rhorer <lrhorer@satx.rr.com>, linux-raid@vger.kernel.org, Christoph Hellwig <hch@infradead.org>, Eric Sandeen <esandeen@redhat.com>, Dave Chinner <david@fromorbit.com>
List-Id: linux-raid.ids

On 10/27/2009 08:50 PM, Richard Scobie wrote:
> Majed B. wrote:
>> Indeed xfs_repair doesn't require the abusive amount of memory
>> xfs_check requires.
>>
>> I've been a happy XFS user for a few years now, but the fact the
>> xfsprogs aren't being maintained properly and xfs_check is still a
>> failure, I'm considering other alternatives.
>
> This should change soon, see the September entry:
>
> http://xfs.org/index.php/XFS_Status_Updates
>
> "On the userspace side a large patch series to reduce the memory usage 
> in xfs_repair to acceptable levels was posted, but not yet merged."
>
> Regards,
>
> Richard

There are several people still actively working on both XFS & its tools 
and I am sure that they are interested in hearing about issues :-)

ric