From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Max Waterman Subject: Re: md software raid Date: Wed, 28 Oct 2009 03:09:06 +0200 Message-ID: <4AE799B2.6000309@fastmail.co.uk> 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=UTF-8; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Return-path: In-Reply-To: <4AE7955B.3020501@sauce.co.nz> Sender: linux-raid-owner@vger.kernel.org To: Richard Scobie Cc: "Majed B." , Leslie Rhorer , linux-raid@vger.kernel.org List-Id: linux-raid.ids 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." > I also notice SGI still (since their take-over) seem to feature it fairly prominently on their web site, indicating to me that it probably won't fall into dis-use any time soon...though web sites can be misleading. Max.