Date: Tue, 18 May 2004 09:50:23 +0200 From: "Cyrille Lefevre" <clefevre-lists@9online.fr> To: "Scott Long" <scottl@freebsd.org>, "Dan Nelson" <dnelson@allantgroup.com> Cc: Michael Hamburg <hamburg@fas.harvard.edu> Subject: Re: fsck in -current Message-ID: <021c01c43cac$c6b4b6b0$7890a8c0@dyndns.org> References: <20040515220258.H920@ganymede.hub.org><D3AE316C-A6D9-11D8-89DA-0003939A19AA@fas.harvard.edu><20040515233728.Q30269@ganymede.hub.org><FA17DF77-A6FB-11D8-89DA-0003939A19AA@fas.harvard.edu><20040516163039.GE29158@dan.emsphone.com> <40A79A54.3090703@freebsd.org>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
"Scott Long" <scottl@freebsd.org> wrote: > Dan Nelson wrote: [snip] > > Fsck takes very little CPU; it's almost all disk I/O, and bgfsck tries > > to throttle its load if it thinks that there's too much disk load. > > Actually, bgfsck unconditionally inserts a delay into every 8th i/o > operation to try to keep from saturating the disks. Unfortunately > this isn't terribly sophisticated and it results in bgfsck taking > an eternity whether the system is idle, loaded, or reniced. doesn't the delay be related to the load average or to ki_pctcpu (sys/user.h) ? say, allow bgfsck to eat up to 5 or 10 % of CPU usage ? see getpcpu() in bin/ps/print.c for details. Cyrille Lefevre. -- home: mailto:cyrille.lefevre@laposte.net
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?021c01c43cac$c6b4b6b0$7890a8c0>