Josef Bacik <jo...@redhat.com> writes: >> a btrfsck run on a 2T volume [with] 512M ram got [OOM killed]. > > Yes, btrfsck keeps the entire extent tree in memory, so the bigger the > fs, the more RAM it's going to use.
Is that an inherent property of btrfsck, or do you intend to address it sometime before btrfs is labelled "production ready"? -- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-btrfs" in the body of a message to majord...@vger.kernel.org More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
