what is fsck's "slowdown"?
Marc G. Fournier
scrappy at hub.org
Fri Sep 3 20:42:21 PDT 2004
On Sat, 4 Sep 2004, Giorgos Keramidas wrote:
> On 2004-09-03 17:35, Chris Laverdure <dashevil at sympatico.ca> wrote:
>> On Fri, 2004-09-03 at 21:14, Giorgos Keramidas wrote:
>>> (Regarding "parallelization" of fsck by spawning many instances of
>>> fsck for parts of the same partition...)
>>> My intuition says that if metadata of the first part of the disk references
>>> data residing on the second part synchronization and locking would probably
>>> be a bit difficult; actually very difficult.
>> My intuition tells me that it would be a much better solution to run
>> multiple fsck's concurrently. What harm could there be in fscking (num
>> of processors) partitions at the same time?
> AFAIK, this is exactly what "background fsck" does in 5.X :-)
fsck -p in 4.x does this also .. but, when there is only one large file
system, and 4 or 5 smaller ones, those 4 or 5 smaller ones don't take long
t do ... in my case, that one large one just took 12hrs to complete, on a
system where that one fsck was the only thing running :( I don't believe
that moving to 5.x's bkgd fsck will speed that up any, and, in fact, would
probably slow it down since it will be completing with other processes ...
Marc G. Fournier Hub.Org Networking Services (http://www.hub.org)
Email: scrappy at hub.org Yahoo!: yscrappy ICQ: 7615664
More information about the freebsd-current