SCIENTIFIC-LINUX-USERS Archives

March 2008

SCIENTIFIC-LINUX-USERS@LISTSERV.FNAL.GOV
Options: Use Monospaced Font
Show Text Part by Default
Show All Mail Headers

Message: [<< First] [< Prev] [Next >] [Last >>]
Topic: [<< First] [< Prev] [Next >] [Last >>]
Author: [<< First] [< Prev] [Next >] [Last >>]

Print Reply
Subject:
Re: fsck.ext3 on large file systems?
From:
Michael Hannon <[log in to unmask]>
Reply To:
Michael Hannon <[log in to unmask]>
Date:
Thu, 27 Mar 2008 15:40:58 -0700
Content-Type:
text/plain
Parts/Attachments:
text/plain (30 lines) 
On Thu, Mar 27, 2008 at 05:06:53PM +0100, [log in to unmask] wrote:
> On Thu, 27 Mar 2008, Stephen John Smoogen wrote:
.
.
.
> Hmm, we successfully fsck'd ext3 filesystems 1.4 TB in size frequently a 
> couple of years ago, under 2.4 (back then, it was SuSE 8.2 + a vanilla 
> kernel). This took no more than a few hours (maybe 2,3, or 4).  It was 
> hardware RAID, not too reliable (hence "frequently"), and not too fast (< 
> 100 MB/s). A contemporary linux server with software RAID should complete 
> an fsck *much* faster, or something is wrong.

Hi, Stephan.  Yea, I think I must be doing something wrong here, but I
haven't been able to figure out what it is.

> And I still wonder why fsck at at all just because a broken disk was 
> replaced in a redundant array?

The system seems to insist on it.  Again, there may be some cockpit
error involved.

Thanks.

					- Mike
-- 
Michael Hannon            mailto:[log in to unmask]
Dept. of Physics          530.752.4966
University of California  530.752.4717 FAX
Davis, CA 95616-8677

ATOM RSS1 RSS2