Date: Thu, 29 Mar 2001 20:11:56 -0800 From: Alfred Perlstein <bright@wintelcom.net> To: "Michael C . Wu" <keichii@peorth.iteration.net> Cc: Bakul Shah <bakul@bitblocks.com>, Kirk McKusick <mckusick@mckusick.com>, arch@FreeBSD.ORG Subject: Re: Background Fsck Message-ID: <20010329201156.P9431@fw.wintelcom.net> In-Reply-To: <20010329220128.B21838@peorth.iteration.net>; from keichii@iteration.net on Thu, Mar 29, 2001 at 10:01:28PM -0600 References: <200103290522.VAA06966@beastie.mckusick.com> <200103300053.TAA27553@thunderer.cnchost.com> <20010329220128.B21838@peorth.iteration.net>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
* Michael C . Wu <keichii@iteration.net> [010329 20:01] wrote: > I think Kirk would know a thing or two about FFS. ;-) > > On Thu, Mar 29, 2001 at 04:53:55PM -0800, Bakul Shah scribbled: > | Dumb question time. Why would I want to run a background > | fsck on an active filesystem? One wouldn't mount an unsafe > > You want your system to be up as soon as possible. > Have you ever tried to fsck even just a 200gb system? > > | filesystem in the first place. Perhaps you are talking about > | background garbage collection on an active fs -- blocks and > > No, he calls it background fsck because that is what it is. > > | 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)? > > Please at least try to understand what this feature is and does. > > | 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). > > This is a significant architecture addition/redesign to > reduce fsck time. er, actually Bakul Shah is correct in his questions, you're the one who doesn't seem to understand. :) It is basically a garbage collection that's possible because the disk is "frozen" in the snapshot. As far as speeding up fsck in general, I haven't heard anything, suggestions are welcome. :) And as far as 'fsgc', that might be a good thing to call it, basically put code into 'fsck' so that when argv[0] = "fscg" it does the snapshotting and gc sweep. -- -Alfred Perlstein - [bright@wintelcom.net|alfred@freebsd.org] Instead of asking why a piece of software is using "1970s technology," start asking why software is ignoring 30 years of accumulated wisdom. To Unsubscribe: send mail to majordomo@FreeBSD.org with "unsubscribe freebsd-arch" in the body of the message
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?20010329201156.P9431>