Improvements to fsck performance in -current ...?

[Alexander Leidinger]

On Tue, 30 Sep 2003 19:49:33 -0300 (ADT)
"Marc G. Fournier" <scrappy at hub.org> wrote:

> Now,I don't/wouldn't have softupdates enabled on / .. does the 'background
> fsck' know to not background if softupdates are not enabled?  I'm going to
> switch back to -p and look a bit closer the next time it happens (if it
> happens) to see if it is/was a softupdate file system that failed, now
> that I have a better idea of what I'm looking for ...

I can only repeat what Robert already told you, bg-fsck is much better now.

> > I suspect that these enhancements may both require that soft updates be
> > enabled for the file systems.
> 
> are either of these enhancements back-patchable to the 4.x fsck, or do
> they require some non-4.x compatible changes to work? ... I'm at 3.5hrs
> and counting right now ... any speedup would be great ...

The second enhancement isn't that much magic... just newfs with a large
value for "-c" (a recent 4.x-newfs may do it by default, as it does in
-current). Together with a larger block size ("-b 16384" if it isn't
already the case) and a suitable fragment size ("-f 2048") this will
reduce the time fsck will need.

Bye,
Alexander.

-- 
                      Loose bits sink chips.

http://www.Leidinger.net                       Alexander @ Leidinger.net
  GPG fingerprint = C518 BC70 E67F 143F BE91  3365 79E2 9C60 B006 3FE7