From owner-freebsd-fs Fri Jan 18 14:17:11 2002 Delivered-To: freebsd-fs@freebsd.org Received: from elvis.mu.org (elvis.mu.org [192.203.228.196]) by hub.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 9661937B41A; Fri, 18 Jan 2002 14:17:05 -0800 (PST) Received: by elvis.mu.org (Postfix, from userid 1192) id 6878810DDF8; Fri, 18 Jan 2002 14:17:05 -0800 (PST) Date: Fri, 18 Jan 2002 14:17:05 -0800 From: Alfred Perlstein To: "Andrew P. Lentvorski" Cc: freebsd-stable@freebsd.org, freebsd-fs@freebsd.org Subject: Re: Background fsck'ing Message-ID: <20020118141705.N13686@elvis.mu.org> References: <20020118140829.C87193-100000@mail.allcaps.org> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline User-Agent: Mutt/1.2.5i In-Reply-To: <20020118140829.C87193-100000@mail.allcaps.org>; from bsder@allcaps.org on Fri, Jan 18, 2002 at 02:10:44PM -0800 Sender: owner-freebsd-fs@FreeBSD.ORG Precedence: bulk List-ID: List-Archive: (Web Archive) List-Help: (List Instructions) List-Subscribe: List-Unsubscribe: X-Loop: FreeBSD.org * Andrew P. Lentvorski [020118 14:10] wrote: > My apologies for being an idiot and hitting ^X before I meant to ... > > I looked at the CVS repository today and didn't note a tag on the fsck > code for -STABLE. > > Is background fsck'ing included in -STABLE? The large fsck times for > multi-GB and TB RAID servers is becoming an impediment to using FreeBSD as > a server (where BSD has traditionally been strong). > > If it's not included, what are the issues preventing it from getting > folded backward? It requires extensive backporting for snapshot support. The current background fsck is experimental and can cause problems for people, it's still somewhat in development. -Alfred To Unsubscribe: send mail to majordomo@FreeBSD.org with "unsubscribe freebsd-fs" in the body of the message