From owner-freebsd-arch Thu Mar 29 16:54: 4 2001 Delivered-To: freebsd-arch@freebsd.org Received: from thunderer.cnchost.com (thunderer.concentric.net [207.155.252.72]) by hub.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 302F537B71D for ; Thu, 29 Mar 2001 16:54:03 -0800 (PST) (envelope-from bakul@bitblocks.com) Received: from bitblocks.com ([64.1.14.226]) by thunderer.cnchost.com id TAA27553; Thu, 29 Mar 2001 19:53:57 -0500 (EST) [ConcentricHost SMTP Relay 1.10] Message-ID: <200103300053.TAA27553@thunderer.cnchost.com> To: Kirk McKusick Cc: arch@freebsd.org Subject: Re: Background Fsck In-Reply-To: Your message of "Wed, 28 Mar 2001 21:22:10 PST." <200103290522.VAA06966@beastie.mckusick.com> Date: Thu, 29 Mar 2001 16:53:55 -0800 From: Bakul Shah Sender: owner-freebsd-arch@FreeBSD.ORG Precedence: bulk X-Loop: FreeBSD.ORG Dumb question time. Why would I want to run a background fsck on an active filesystem? One wouldn't mount an unsafe filesystem in the first place. Perhaps you are talking about background garbage collection on an active fs -- blocks and inodes not reachable from the root set of objects (root inode + freelist + superblock?) recovered lazily. If this is really what you have, wouldn't it make sense to call it something else (e.g. fsgc)? On a somewhat related note, I have always wondered if the current fsck algorithm can be significantly improved or if it is about as efficient as it can be (barring any peephole code improvements). To Unsubscribe: send mail to majordomo@FreeBSD.org with "unsubscribe freebsd-arch" in the body of the message