From owner-freebsd-stable@FreeBSD.ORG Sun Nov 7 04:57:51 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 B782716A4CE; Sun, 7 Nov 2004 04:57:51 +0000 (GMT) Received: from hub.org (hub.org [200.46.204.220]) by mx1.FreeBSD.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 88FE043D46; Sun, 7 Nov 2004 04:57:51 +0000 (GMT) (envelope-from scrappy@hub.org) Received: from localhost (unknown [200.46.204.144]) by hub.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 297A012ADDC; Sun, 7 Nov 2004 00:57:50 -0400 (AST) Received: from hub.org ([200.46.204.220]) by localhost (av.hub.org [200.46.204.144]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id 72979-09; Sun, 7 Nov 2004 04:57:50 +0000 (GMT) Received: from ganymede.hub.org (blk-222-46-91.eastlink.ca [24.222.46.91]) by hub.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id BC77712AB2B; Sun, 7 Nov 2004 00:57:49 -0400 (AST) Received: by ganymede.hub.org (Postfix, from userid 1000) id DA86D3ACF7; Sun, 7 Nov 2004 00:57:48 -0400 (AST) Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ganymede.hub.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id C2E2C3A95F; Sun, 7 Nov 2004 00:57:48 -0400 (AST) Date: Sun, 7 Nov 2004 00:57:48 -0400 (AST) From: "Marc G. Fournier" To: Don Lewis In-Reply-To: <200411070042.iA70gdPV050058@gw.catspoiler.org> Message-ID: <20041107005645.O46679@ganymede.hub.org> References: <200411070042.iA70gdPV050058@gw.catspoiler.org> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII; format=flowed X-Virus-Scanned: by amavisd-new at hub.org 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 04:57:51 -0000 On Sat, 6 Nov 2004, Don Lewis wrote: > 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. Hindsight is 20/20, but I should have trap' the output ... I saw several 'ZERO LENGTH DIRECTORY' messages in Phase 4 still ... should I have seen any at all? ---- Marc G. Fournier Hub.Org Networking Services (http://www.hub.org) Email: scrappy@hub.org Yahoo!: yscrappy ICQ: 7615664