From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: with ECARTIS (v1.0.0; list xfs); Wed, 28 May 2008 01:23:07 -0700 (PDT) Received: from cuda.sgi.com (cuda1.sgi.com [192.48.168.28]) by oss.sgi.com (8.12.11.20060308/8.12.11/SuSE Linux 0.7) with ESMTP id m4S8N3Ye010327 for ; Wed, 28 May 2008 01:23:03 -0700 Received: from smtp7-g19.free.fr (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by cuda.sgi.com (Spam Firewall) with ESMTP id 922EEBF872D for ; Wed, 28 May 2008 01:23:53 -0700 (PDT) Received: from smtp7-g19.free.fr (smtp7-g19.free.fr [212.27.42.64]) by cuda.sgi.com with ESMTP id 6m98VQWy8agkRUOv for ; Wed, 28 May 2008 01:23:53 -0700 (PDT) Date: Wed, 28 May 2008 10:20:38 +0200 From: Emmanuel Florac Subject: Re: xfs_check Message-ID: <20080528102038.768dfd93@galadriel.home> In-Reply-To: <20080527162605.GA30344@lst.de> References: <20080527162605.GA30344@lst.de> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit Sender: xfs-bounce@oss.sgi.com Errors-to: xfs-bounce@oss.sgi.com List-Id: xfs To: Christoph Hellwig Cc: xfs@oss.sgi.com Le Tue, 27 May 2008 18:26:05 +0200 vous écriviez: > Is there any reason > why we shouldn't simply kill xfs_check and replaced it with a wrapper > around xfs_repair? I may add that I hardly even had any filesystem recently small enough to fit xfs_check hunger for memory. All attempts to use xfs_check invariably ended with "out of memory" for 5 years or more. Actually IIRC I used xfs_check succesfully only on IRIX, back in the time of 9GB usrroot drives :) -- -------------------------------------------------- Emmanuel Florac www.intellique.com --------------------------------------------------