From owner-freebsd-stable@FreeBSD.ORG Sun Nov 7 00:42:47 2004 Return-Path: Delivered-To: freebsd-stable@freebsd.org Received: from mx1.FreeBSD.org (mx1.freebsd.org [216.136.204.125]) by hub.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 8EAEF16A4CE for ; Sun, 7 Nov 2004 00:42:47 +0000 (GMT) Received: from gw.catspoiler.org (217-ip-163.nccn.net [209.79.217.163]) by mx1.FreeBSD.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 4B5A443D1F for ; Sun, 7 Nov 2004 00:42:47 +0000 (GMT) (envelope-from truckman@FreeBSD.org) Received: from FreeBSD.org (mousie.catspoiler.org [192.168.101.2]) by gw.catspoiler.org (8.13.1/8.13.1) with ESMTP id iA70gdPV050058; Sat, 6 Nov 2004 16:42:43 -0800 (PST) (envelope-from truckman@FreeBSD.org) Message-Id: <200411070042.iA70gdPV050058@gw.catspoiler.org> Date: Sat, 6 Nov 2004 16:42:39 -0800 (PST) From: Don Lewis To: scrappy@hub.org In-Reply-To: <20041106162652.U46679@ganymede.hub.org> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/plain; charset=us-ascii cc: freebsd-stable@FreeBSD.org Subject: Re: Don's changes to fsck on 4.x ... X-BeenThere: freebsd-stable@freebsd.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.1 Precedence: list List-Id: Production branch of FreeBSD source code List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Sun, 07 Nov 2004 00:42:47 -0000 On 6 Nov, Marc G. Fournier wrote: > > Well, finally had a reason to use it, and its running right now ... seems > a bit slower in phase 2 then before ... is to be expected? Looking > through the patch, it seems that all pass's were affected, so this might > be now the norm ... after ~39minutes running on a very large file system, > hitting ctl-T periodically, I'm up to about 50% through Phase 2 ... so far > *knock on wood* no errors being generated by fsck itself, but that doesn't > mean anything :) Under normal circumstances, there shouldn't be any noticeable difference in performance. If there are a lot of zero link count files, phase 1 should be very slightly faster because the zero link count file list no longer needs to be allocated, and phase 4 should be a lot faster. Most of the time in phases 1 and 2 is consumed by disk reads. The only change to phase 2 was the addition of the new inode states to a couple of case statements and an if statement which should not affect the amount of I/O done and CPU time would only be affected by a miniscule amount, so I would not expect any change to the performance of that phase.