linux-ext4 - Re: Recovery after mkfs.ext4 on a ext4

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 for Android: free password hash cracker in your pocket

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

Message-ID: <53A7C4A1.4000603@scarlet.be>
Date:	Mon, 23 Jun 2014 08:09:37 +0200
From:	Killian De Volder <killian.de.volder@...rlet.be>
To:	Theodore Ts'o <tytso@....edu>
CC:	linux-ext4@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: Recovery after mkfs.ext4 on a ext4

On 15-06-14 23:44, Theodore Ts'o wrote:
>
>> Sometimes I think it's certain inodes causing the excessive memory usage cause.
>> 20GiB sounds a lot when the normal -f fschk took less then 3GiB. (It's a 16TiB file system).
>> But suppose it needs more binary maps when the filesystem is this corrupt ?
> E2fsck needs a lot more memory when dealing with a file systems where
> some blocks are claimed by multiple inodes.  This is when pass
> 1b/1c/1d are invoked.  The e2fsck program also caches where the
> directory blocks are located, but I doubt that's a particular concern
> here.
>
> Regards,
> 						- Ted
It's still checking due to the high amount of ram it's using.
However if I start a parallel check with -nf if find other errors the one with the high memory usage hasn't found yet ?

Should I start a new one, or is this not advised ?
As sometimes I think it's bad inodes causing artificial usage of memory.

Kind regards,
Killian De Volder
--
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