Adam Vande More amvandemore at gmail.com
Mon Nov 8 18:37:26 UTC 2010

On Mon, Nov 8, 2010 at 5:50 AM, Ivan Voras <ivoras at freebsd.org> wrote:

> On 11/08/10 11:01, Samuel Martín Moro wrote:
> > In my opinion, the only chance to get back the data would be to plug an
> > additional drive, make a huge swap file...
> > Knowing that context switching, on such an amount of RAM ... that would
> at
> > least take days.
> >
> >
> > In doubt: am I missing something? Is there an easier way?
> Basically, no.
> You can't expect fsck a 44 TB drive with 2 GB of RAM, there is too much
> information to be kept while checking.
> However, IIRC there have been some committed patches in 7 and later
> which reduced the amount of memory so going with at least 7-STABLE would
> be better.
> It would of course be even better to go with 8-STABLE or wait for 9.0
> which should be released in several months and then either use UFS-SUJ
> or ZFS.

Another option would to place UFS on top a gjournal then your fsck become
much, much less intensive.  However there are several problems with this
suggestion as gjournal isn't available for your version, and adding gjournal
to an existing FS is a non-trivial task and would probably not be feasible.
Perhaps you could evaluate it for your next product build though.

Adam Vande More

More information about the freebsd-questions mailing list