?

Log in

No account? Create an account

Previous Entry | Next Entry

Oct. 18th, 2007

  • 11:14 PM
b/w
matthew
interesting bit of trivia.... if you have a 1T+ ext3 volume, you'd better have more than 512M of ram in the system if you hope to be able to run fsck on said volume.

Fortunately I had a spare 512M to go into the system.

Tags:

Comments

( 6 comments — Leave a comment )
hachi
Oct. 19th, 2007 08:06 pm (UTC)
Well... I'm jut going to have to remember this one now... thanks for catching it.

How does it manifest itself? fsck just takes up that much resident memory?
| Reply | Thread
matthew
Oct. 20th, 2007 04:26 am (UTC)
fsck fails saying that there isn't enough free memory to allocate for inodes or something.
| Reply | Parent | Thread
gordonmessmer
Oct. 20th, 2007 01:23 am (UTC)
You need to quit skimping on swap space. :p
| Reply | Thread
matthew
Oct. 20th, 2007 04:31 am (UTC)
Is swap turned on by that point? From looking at the logs it appears that swap turns on after the disks are fsck'd. That makes some sense considering that swap can be in a file.
| Reply | Parent | Thread
gordonmessmer
Oct. 20th, 2007 07:50 pm (UTC)
Son of a bitch... you're right! It's true swap can be a file, but there are plenty of things that rc.sysinit does twice, because new options become available as more systems are brought up. It's totally reasonable to bring block device swap on early enough for fsck, and then file backed swap later.

When fsck failed, did it drop you to the repair shell? It'd be nice if you at least had the option to bring swap online manually.
| Reply | Parent | Thread
matthew
Oct. 20th, 2007 08:28 pm (UTC)
Yeah, it dropped me to a shell and I tried manually with the same error. I didn't even think to activate swap though. That probably would have saved me. Since I had the RAM there and had been intending to install it anyway I didn't evn think of another solution.
| Reply | Parent | Thread
( 6 comments — Leave a comment )