Date: Wed, 1 Oct 2003 13:27:55 +0200 From: Alexander Leidinger <Alexander@Leidinger.net> To: freebsd-current@freebsd.org Subject: Re: Improvements to fsck performance in -current ...? Message-ID: <20031001132755.0e6d7061.Alexander@Leidinger.net> In-Reply-To: <20030930194544.H94686@ganymede.hub.org> References: <20030930221148.54E7E5D07@ptavv.es.net> <20030930194544.H94686@ganymede.hub.org>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
On Tue, 30 Sep 2003 19:49:33 -0300 (ADT)
"Marc G. Fournier" <scrappy@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
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?20031001132755.0e6d7061.Alexander>