linux-ext4 - RE: fsck performance.

lists.openwall.net		lists / announce owl-users owl-dev john-users john-dev passwdqc-users yescrypt popa3d-users / oss-security kernel-hardening musl sabotage tlsify passwords / crypt-dev xvendor / Bugtraq Full-Disclosure linux-kernel linux-netdev linux-ext4 linux-hardening linux-cve-announce PHC
Open Source and information security mailing list archives

Hash Suite: Windows password security audit tool. GUI, reports in PDF.

[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [day] [month] [year] [list]

Message-ID: <25B374CC0D9DFB4698BB331F82CD0CF20D6161@wdscexbe08.sc.wdc.com>
Date:	Thu, 24 Feb 2011 16:26:16 -0800
From:	"Daniel Taylor" <Daniel.Taylor@....com>
To:	unlisted-recipients:; (no To-header on input)
Cc:	<linux-ext4@...r.kernel.org>
Subject: RE: fsck performance.

> -----Original Message-----
> From: linux-ext4-owner@...r.kernel.org 
> [mailto:linux-ext4-owner@...r.kernel.org] On Behalf Of Rogier Wolff
> Sent: Wednesday, February 23, 2011 11:30 PM
> To: Andreas Dilger
> Cc: linux-ext4@...r.kernel.org
> Subject: Re: fsck performance.
> 
> On Wed, Feb 23, 2011 at 03:24:18PM -0700, Andreas Dilger wrote:
> 
...
> 
> Second: e2fsck is too fragile as it is. It should be able to handle
> big filesystems on little systems. I have a puny little 2GHz Athlon
> system that currently has 3T of disk storage and 1G RAM. Embedded
> Linux systems can be running those amounts of storage with only 64
> or 128 Mb of RAM. 

I have to second this comment.  One of our NAS has 256 MBytes of RAM
(and they wanted 64) with a 3TB disk, 2.996TB of which is an EXT4 file
system.  With our 2.6.32.11 kernel and e2fsprogs version  1.41.3-1,
all I get is a segfault when I run fsck.ext4.

--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-ext4" in
the body of a message to majordomo@...r.kernel.org
More majordomo info at  http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html