Re: md software raid

[Eric Sandeen <sandeen@redhat.com>]

Ric Wheeler wrote:
> 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
> 


FWIW, this is merged now, but not yet in a usable release.

Still, existing xfs_repair has much better memory footprint than 
xfs_check, and it is the tool you want to use whether you are just 
checking (with -n) or repairing.

xfs_check is more or less deprecated; it is known to have large memory 
requirements, and xfs_repair is the tool to use.

-Eric