<!DOCTYPE HTML PUBLIC "-//W3C//DTD HTML 3.2//EN"> <HTML> <HEAD> <TITLE>Re: [Linux-cluster] Re: gfs_fsck problems (not doingget_get_meta_buffer)</TITLE> </HEAD> <BODY>  Is the fs code closer to ext than to say xfs? -----Original Message----- From: David Teigland [<A HREF="mailto:teigland@redhat.com">mailto:teigland@redhat.com</A>] Sent: Mon May 15 08:23:42 2006 To: Stephen Willey Cc: Daire Byrne; linux-cluster@redhat.com Subject: Re: [Linux-cluster] Re: gfs_fsck problems (not doingget_get_meta_buffer) On Mon, May 15, 2006 at 11:46:22AM +0100, Stephen Willey wrote: > Having looked into this a bit, it appears that gfs_fsck doesn't like > large drives. > > It works fine on a 137Gb drive but fails instantly with the below > symptoms on a 10Tb RAID. > > Is it still the case that GFS is not scalable to very large filesystems? It's probably more a case of no one ever even trying trying fsck on a fs that large given how long it would probably take. Dave -- Linux-cluster mailing list Linux-cluster@redhat.com <A HREF="https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/linux-cluster">https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/linux-cluster</A> </BODY> </HTML>