Thanks for taking the time to answer. (And what I didn't say: as a pure user, for desktop and for the backup appliance mentioned, I'm using btrfs so far without any problems. I'm not hard on it on purpose, but stuff like failed wake-up after suspend to ram does happen occasionally on the laptop.) cheers -- vbi On Thursday 27 May 2010 20.15:53 Josef Bacik wrote: > On Thu, May 27, 2010 at 06:46:04PM +0200, Adrian von Bidder wrote: > > Heyho! > > > > (This is using btrfs from Debian's 2.6.32 2.6.32-3-kirkwood kernel (-9 > > package; btrfs tools is v0.19-16-g075587c) > > > > A few observations about btrfsck: > > > > a btrfsck run on a 2T volume (4 disks) on a QNAP appliance (512M ram) > > got killed by Mr. OOM Killer. Initially, I was quite surprised. I'm > > only moderately surprised now since it might well be that I forgot to > > enable swap. > > Yes, btrfsck keeps the entire extent tree in memory, so the bigger the > fs, the more RAM it's going to use. > > > A btrfsck run (on a remote machine this time, with nbd) showed quite a > > few errors like: > > root 268 inode 34001 errors 2000 > > root 268 inode 34002 errors 2000 > > root 268 inode 34074 errors 2000 > > root 268 inode 34102 errors 2000 > > root 268 inode 34103 errors 2000 > > root 268 inode 34104 errors 2000 > > root 268 inode 34132 errors 2000 > > root 268 inode 34133 errors 2000 > > > > 2nd observation: am I supposed to know what this means? > > No not really, atm it's just for us developers. > > > And 3rd observation: btrfsck apparently doesn't correct this kind of > > error. Running btrfsck again still shows the error. > > Yeah btrfsck doesn't fix problems yet. Thats being worked on. Thanks, > > Josef -- Wenn Windows 98 die Antwort ist, wie blöd ist dann die Frage gewesen?
Attachment:
signature.asc
Description: This is a digitally signed message part.
