Date: Wed, 27 Oct 1999 14:48:04 -0500 (CDT) From: David Scheidt <dscheidt@enteract.com> To: "Ronald G. Minnich" <rminnich@lanl.gov> Cc: Ilia Chipitsine <ilia@cgilh.chel.su>, Chuck Youse <cyouse@paradox.nexuslabs.com>, questions@FreeBSD.ORG, hackers@FreeBSD.ORG Subject: Re: why FFS is THAT slower than EXT2 ? Message-ID: <Pine.NEB.3.96.991027144529.68698B-100000@shell-1.enteract.com> In-Reply-To: <Pine.SGI.4.10.9910271324180.671784-100000@acl.lanl.gov>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
On Wed, 27 Oct 1999, Ronald G. Minnich wrote: > On Wed, 27 Oct 1999, Ilia Chipitsine wrote: > > as far as I remember ext2 has some "counter". I used to use Linux and > > it performed 'fsck' from time to time (even if fs was clearly unmounted). > > that is a very good thing to have. > > And it's a good thing because ... well, maybe because it's not that > reliable an FS. I actually can't see it as a good thing if you have a file > system that doesn't need it. I seem to recall that ULTRIX had such a mechanism. There must have been other things that decremented the counter though, because my /home filesystem got fscked nearly every reboot. /usr would only be if the machine was up a really long time. DAvid Scheidt To Unsubscribe: send mail to majordomo@FreeBSD.org with "unsubscribe freebsd-questions" in the body of the message
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?Pine.NEB.3.96.991027144529.68698B-100000>