Date: Sun, 24 Jun 2012 12:06:31 -0400 From: "J. Hellenthal" <jhellenthal@dataix.net> To: Adam Vande More <amvandemore@gmail.com> Cc: "Leonardo M. Ram?" <martinrame@yahoo.com>, "freebsd-stable@freebsd.org" <freebsd-stable@freebsd.org>, Greg Byshenk <freebsd@byshenk.net> Subject: Re: fsck_ufs running too often Message-ID: <20120624160631.GA80121@DataIX.net> In-Reply-To: <CA%2BtpaK2q_9=cp6tQ__H9U9UDvbvmocF3sgc7jx_yYjRqALv01A@mail.gmail.com> References: <1340401637.32116.YahooMailNeo@web113519.mail.gq1.yahoo.com> <3729A720-2C8F-4C84-B05A-201394C40D63@gothic.net.au> <20120624013624.GG24842@portland1.byshenk.net> <20120624025451.GA17721@DataIX.net> <CA%2BtpaK2q_9=cp6tQ__H9U9UDvbvmocF3sgc7jx_yYjRqALv01A@mail.gmail.com>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
On Sat, Jun 23, 2012 at 10:15:19PM -0500, Adam Vande More wrote: > On Sat, Jun 23, 2012 at 9:54 PM, Jason Hellenthal <jhellenthal@dataix.net>wrote: > > > > At one point it was proven that background fsck was not benefitial. > > > Where can we find this "proof"? > It was in the lists amongst many conversations. -- - (2^(N-1))
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?20120624160631.GA80121>