How long can fsck take on a 30 TB volume?Slow ext4 fsckHow dangerous is it to interrupt an fsck?How do i fsck / on solaris 10?Can fsck on ufs cause data loss?JFS: long fsck time on large filesystem?run fsck on mounted partitionHow long does it take to fsck a volume?Difference between “fsck -y” vs “fsck -a”Strange behavior of fsckWhen is fsck dangerous?
Names of the Six Tastes
Align a table column at a specific symbol
Is this strange Morse signal type common?
Can I bring back Planetary Romance as a genre?
Visualize multiple string segments
Crime rates in a post-scarcity economy
What is the oldest instrument ever?
Do oversize pulley wheels increase derailleur capacity?
What should I use to get rid of some kind of weed in my onions
How can I test a shell script in a "safe environment" to avoid harm to my computer?
Using mean length and mean weight to calculate mean BMI?
Opposite party turned away from voting when ballot is all opposing party
Add elements inside Array conditionally in JavaScript
What are my options legally if NYC company is not paying salary?
How do I give a darkroom course without negatives from the attendees?
Is there a list of the most-transited airports in the world?
Was Mohammed the most popular first name for boys born in Berlin in 2018?
What is the Ancient One's mistake?
Whose birthyears are canonically established in the MCU?
Why did Missandei say this?
How could a civilization detect tachyons?
Is there an idiom that means "revealing a secret unintentionally"?
Why did Yoast put a no-index tag in my XML sitemap?
The unknown and unexplained in science fiction
How long can fsck take on a 30 TB volume?
Slow ext4 fsckHow dangerous is it to interrupt an fsck?How do i fsck / on solaris 10?Can fsck on ufs cause data loss?JFS: long fsck time on large filesystem?run fsck on mounted partitionHow long does it take to fsck a volume?Difference between “fsck -y” vs “fsck -a”Strange behavior of fsckWhen is fsck dangerous?
.everyoneloves__top-leaderboard:empty,.everyoneloves__mid-leaderboard:empty,.everyoneloves__bot-mid-leaderboard:empty height:90px;width:728px;box-sizing:border-box;
In mid-November, a VPS that I am renting from a hosting company stopped responding. When I contacted support, they explained that a power outage in the datacenter caused a forced reboot and fsck. Eventually, I asked why it was taking so long, and was told that the size of the volume is 30 TB. The last time I received an update was in February, and they have not responded to my most recent inquiry.
I understand that fsck can be very slow for some file systems, but is it possible for fsck to take 6 months on a 30 TB volume, or should I assume that this hosting company is lying to me so that I continue to pay my bill every month?
fsck
asked 3 hours ago
Brian BiBrian Bi
1165
add a comment |
In mid-November, a VPS that I am renting from a hosting company stopped responding. When I contacted support, they explained that a power outage in the datacenter caused a forced reboot and fsck. Eventually, I asked why it was taking so long, and was told that the size of the volume is 30 TB. The last time I received an update was in February, and they have not responded to my most recent inquiry.
I understand that fsck can be very slow for some file systems, but is it possible for fsck to take 6 months on a 30 TB volume, or should I assume that this hosting company is lying to me so that I continue to pay my bill every month?
fsck
asked 3 hours ago
Brian BiBrian Bi
1165
8
They were probably lying to you from the start. I would expect that to take hours. You should have stopped paying in December.
– Michael Hampton♦
3 hours ago
add a comment |
In mid-November, a VPS that I am renting from a hosting company stopped responding. When I contacted support, they explained that a power outage in the datacenter caused a forced reboot and fsck. Eventually, I asked why it was taking so long, and was told that the size of the volume is 30 TB. The last time I received an update was in February, and they have not responded to my most recent inquiry.
I understand that fsck can be very slow for some file systems, but is it possible for fsck to take 6 months on a 30 TB volume, or should I assume that this hosting company is lying to me so that I continue to pay my bill every month?
fsck
asked 3 hours ago
Brian BiBrian Bi
1165
In mid-November, a VPS that I am renting from a hosting company stopped responding. When I contacted support, they explained that a power outage in the datacenter caused a forced reboot and fsck. Eventually, I asked why it was taking so long, and was told that the size of the volume is 30 TB. The last time I received an update was in February, and they have not responded to my most recent inquiry.
I understand that fsck can be very slow for some file systems, but is it possible for fsck to take 6 months on a 30 TB volume, or should I assume that this hosting company is lying to me so that I continue to pay my bill every month?
fsck
fsck
asked 3 hours ago
Brian BiBrian Bi
1165
asked 3 hours ago
Brian BiBrian Bi
1165
asked 3 hours ago
Brian BiBrian Bi
1165
asked 3 hours ago
Brian BiBrian Bi
1165
asked 3 hours ago
Brian BiBrian Bi
1165
1165
8
They were probably lying to you from the start. I would expect that to take hours. You should have stopped paying in December.
– Michael Hampton♦
3 hours ago
add a comment |
8
They were probably lying to you from the start. I would expect that to take hours. You should have stopped paying in December.
– Michael Hampton♦
3 hours ago
8
8
They were probably lying to you from the start. I would expect that to take hours. You should have stopped paying in December.
– Michael Hampton♦
3 hours ago
They were probably lying to you from the start. I would expect that to take hours. You should have stopped paying in December.
– Michael Hampton♦
3 hours ago
add a comment |
1 Answer
1
active
oldest
votes
fsck speed mainly depends on the number of files and how they are spread in the respective directory. That said, 6 month for a fsck is absolutely absurd: it should had completed in some hours at most, especially if using xfs which as the speedy xfs_repair utility. Here you can find some fsck run at a scale - all completed under one hour (3600s). So, it is not possible that your fsck is still running.
Anyway, an unexpected power loss will not cause a full-blow fsck, rather only a very fast (some seconds) journal replay. However, if some key files was damaged, the OS can be unbootable.
But they probably just lied to you. You should stop paying immediately, ask for an explanation and apply for a total refund.
answered 1 hour ago
shodanshokshodanshok
27k34889
1
If they're usingext2, then a power failure will require a fullfsck, and I wouldn't be surprised if it takes days on a heavily-used 30TB volume. On the other hand, if they're usingext2on a 30TB volume, that in and of itself is a reason to look elsewhere for hosting services.
– Mark
49 mins ago
2
ext2 uses 32-bit block counter, with a maximum block size of 4096 bytes (ie: a page) on x86 and x86_64. This means ext2 (and ext3) are limited to 8TB volumes so no, the OP can not be using ext2/3. Anyway, using any non-journaled filesystem on a 30 TB volume would be absolutely insane.
– shodanshok
38 mins ago
add a comment |
Your Answer
StackExchange.ready(function()
var channelOptions =
tags: "".split(" "),
id: "2"
;
initTagRenderer("".split(" "), "".split(" "), channelOptions);
StackExchange.using("externalEditor", function()
// Have to fire editor after snippets, if snippets enabled
if (StackExchange.settings.snippets.snippetsEnabled)
StackExchange.using("snippets", function()
createEditor();
);
else
createEditor();
);
function createEditor()
StackExchange.prepareEditor(
heartbeatType: 'answer',
autoActivateHeartbeat: false,
convertImagesToLinks: true,
noModals: true,
showLowRepImageUploadWarning: true,
reputationToPostImages: 10,
bindNavPrevention: true,
postfix: "",
imageUploader:
brandingHtml: "Powered by u003ca class="icon-imgur-white" href="https://imgur.com/"u003eu003c/au003e",
contentPolicyHtml: "User contributions licensed under u003ca href="https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/"u003ecc by-sa 3.0 with attribution requiredu003c/au003e u003ca href="https://stackoverflow.com/legal/content-policy"u003e(content policy)u003c/au003e",
allowUrls: true
,
onDemand: true,
discardSelector: ".discard-answer"
,immediatelyShowMarkdownHelp:true
);
);
Sign up or log in
StackExchange.ready(function ()
StackExchange.helpers.onClickDraftSave('#login-link');
);
Sign up using Google
Sign up using Facebook
Sign up using Email and Password
Post as a guest
Required, but never shown
StackExchange.ready(
function ()
StackExchange.openid.initPostLogin('.new-post-login', 'https%3a%2f%2fserverfault.com%2fquestions%2f966244%2fhow-long-can-fsck-take-on-a-30-tb-volume%23new-answer', 'question_page');
);
Post as a guest
Required, but never shown
1 Answer
1
active
oldest
votes
1 Answer
1
active
oldest
votes
active
oldest
votes
active
oldest
votes
fsck speed mainly depends on the number of files and how they are spread in the respective directory. That said, 6 month for a fsck is absolutely absurd: it should had completed in some hours at most, especially if using xfs which as the speedy xfs_repair utility. Here you can find some fsck run at a scale - all completed under one hour (3600s). So, it is not possible that your fsck is still running.
Anyway, an unexpected power loss will not cause a full-blow fsck, rather only a very fast (some seconds) journal replay. However, if some key files was damaged, the OS can be unbootable.
But they probably just lied to you. You should stop paying immediately, ask for an explanation and apply for a total refund.
answered 1 hour ago
shodanshokshodanshok
27k34889
1
If they're usingext2, then a power failure will require a fullfsck, and I wouldn't be surprised if it takes days on a heavily-used 30TB volume. On the other hand, if they're usingext2on a 30TB volume, that in and of itself is a reason to look elsewhere for hosting services.
– Mark
49 mins ago
2
ext2 uses 32-bit block counter, with a maximum block size of 4096 bytes (ie: a page) on x86 and x86_64. This means ext2 (and ext3) are limited to 8TB volumes so no, the OP can not be using ext2/3. Anyway, using any non-journaled filesystem on a 30 TB volume would be absolutely insane.
– shodanshok
38 mins ago
add a comment |
fsck speed mainly depends on the number of files and how they are spread in the respective directory. That said, 6 month for a fsck is absolutely absurd: it should had completed in some hours at most, especially if using xfs which as the speedy xfs_repair utility. Here you can find some fsck run at a scale - all completed under one hour (3600s). So, it is not possible that your fsck is still running.
Anyway, an unexpected power loss will not cause a full-blow fsck, rather only a very fast (some seconds) journal replay. However, if some key files was damaged, the OS can be unbootable.
But they probably just lied to you. You should stop paying immediately, ask for an explanation and apply for a total refund.
answered 1 hour ago
shodanshokshodanshok
27k34889
1
If they're usingext2, then a power failure will require a fullfsck, and I wouldn't be surprised if it takes days on a heavily-used 30TB volume. On the other hand, if they're usingext2on a 30TB volume, that in and of itself is a reason to look elsewhere for hosting services.
– Mark
49 mins ago
2
ext2 uses 32-bit block counter, with a maximum block size of 4096 bytes (ie: a page) on x86 and x86_64. This means ext2 (and ext3) are limited to 8TB volumes so no, the OP can not be using ext2/3. Anyway, using any non-journaled filesystem on a 30 TB volume would be absolutely insane.
– shodanshok
38 mins ago
add a comment |
fsck speed mainly depends on the number of files and how they are spread in the respective directory. That said, 6 month for a fsck is absolutely absurd: it should had completed in some hours at most, especially if using xfs which as the speedy xfs_repair utility. Here you can find some fsck run at a scale - all completed under one hour (3600s). So, it is not possible that your fsck is still running.
Anyway, an unexpected power loss will not cause a full-blow fsck, rather only a very fast (some seconds) journal replay. However, if some key files was damaged, the OS can be unbootable.
But they probably just lied to you. You should stop paying immediately, ask for an explanation and apply for a total refund.
answered 1 hour ago
shodanshokshodanshok
27k34889
fsck speed mainly depends on the number of files and how they are spread in the respective directory. That said, 6 month for a fsck is absolutely absurd: it should had completed in some hours at most, especially if using xfs which as the speedy xfs_repair utility. Here you can find some fsck run at a scale - all completed under one hour (3600s). So, it is not possible that your fsck is still running.
Anyway, an unexpected power loss will not cause a full-blow fsck, rather only a very fast (some seconds) journal replay. However, if some key files was damaged, the OS can be unbootable.
But they probably just lied to you. You should stop paying immediately, ask for an explanation and apply for a total refund.
answered 1 hour ago
shodanshokshodanshok
27k34889
answered 1 hour ago
shodanshokshodanshok
27k34889
answered 1 hour ago
shodanshokshodanshok
27k34889
answered 1 hour ago
shodanshokshodanshok
27k34889
27k34889
1
If they're usingext2, then a power failure will require a fullfsck, and I wouldn't be surprised if it takes days on a heavily-used 30TB volume. On the other hand, if they're usingext2on a 30TB volume, that in and of itself is a reason to look elsewhere for hosting services.
– Mark
49 mins ago
2
ext2 uses 32-bit block counter, with a maximum block size of 4096 bytes (ie: a page) on x86 and x86_64. This means ext2 (and ext3) are limited to 8TB volumes so no, the OP can not be using ext2/3. Anyway, using any non-journaled filesystem on a 30 TB volume would be absolutely insane.
– shodanshok
38 mins ago
add a comment |
1
If they're usingext2, then a power failure will require a fullfsck, and I wouldn't be surprised if it takes days on a heavily-used 30TB volume. On the other hand, if they're usingext2on a 30TB volume, that in and of itself is a reason to look elsewhere for hosting services.
– Mark
49 mins ago
2
ext2 uses 32-bit block counter, with a maximum block size of 4096 bytes (ie: a page) on x86 and x86_64. This means ext2 (and ext3) are limited to 8TB volumes so no, the OP can not be using ext2/3. Anyway, using any non-journaled filesystem on a 30 TB volume would be absolutely insane.
– shodanshok
38 mins ago
1
1
If they're using
ext2, then a power failure will require a full fsck, and I wouldn't be surprised if it takes days on a heavily-used 30TB volume. On the other hand, if they're using ext2 on a 30TB volume, that in and of itself is a reason to look elsewhere for hosting services.– Mark
49 mins ago
If they're using
ext2, then a power failure will require a full fsck, and I wouldn't be surprised if it takes days on a heavily-used 30TB volume. On the other hand, if they're using ext2 on a 30TB volume, that in and of itself is a reason to look elsewhere for hosting services.– Mark
49 mins ago
2
2
ext2 uses 32-bit block counter, with a maximum block size of 4096 bytes (ie: a page) on x86 and x86_64. This means ext2 (and ext3) are limited to 8TB volumes so no, the OP can not be using ext2/3. Anyway, using any non-journaled filesystem on a 30 TB volume would be absolutely insane.
– shodanshok
38 mins ago
ext2 uses 32-bit block counter, with a maximum block size of 4096 bytes (ie: a page) on x86 and x86_64. This means ext2 (and ext3) are limited to 8TB volumes so no, the OP can not be using ext2/3. Anyway, using any non-journaled filesystem on a 30 TB volume would be absolutely insane.
– shodanshok
38 mins ago
add a comment |
Thanks for contributing an answer to Server Fault!
- Please be sure to answer the question. Provide details and share your research!
But avoid …
- Asking for help, clarification, or responding to other answers.
- Making statements based on opinion; back them up with references or personal experience.
To learn more, see our tips on writing great answers.
Sign up or log in
StackExchange.ready(function ()
StackExchange.helpers.onClickDraftSave('#login-link');
);
Sign up using Google
Sign up using Facebook
Sign up using Email and Password
Post as a guest
Required, but never shown
StackExchange.ready(
function ()
StackExchange.openid.initPostLogin('.new-post-login', 'https%3a%2f%2fserverfault.com%2fquestions%2f966244%2fhow-long-can-fsck-take-on-a-30-tb-volume%23new-answer', 'question_page');
);
Post as a guest
Required, but never shown
Sign up or log in
StackExchange.ready(function ()
StackExchange.helpers.onClickDraftSave('#login-link');
);
Sign up using Google
Sign up using Facebook
Sign up using Email and Password
Post as a guest
Required, but never shown
Sign up or log in
StackExchange.ready(function ()
StackExchange.helpers.onClickDraftSave('#login-link');
);
Sign up using Google
Sign up using Facebook
Sign up using Email and Password
Post as a guest
Required, but never shown
Sign up or log in
StackExchange.ready(function ()
StackExchange.helpers.onClickDraftSave('#login-link');
);
Sign up using Google
Sign up using Facebook
Sign up using Email and Password
Sign up using Google
Sign up using Facebook
Sign up using Email and Password
Post as a guest
Required, but never shown
Required, but never shown
Required, but never shown
Required, but never shown
Required, but never shown
Required, but never shown
Required, but never shown
Required, but never shown
Required, but never shown
8
They were probably lying to you from the start. I would expect that to take hours. You should have stopped paying in December.
– Michael Hampton♦
3 hours ago