Date: Fri, 03 Sep 2004 17:35:10 +0000 From: Chris Laverdure <dashevil@sympatico.ca> To: Giorgos Keramidas <keramida@linux.gr> Cc: freebsd-current@freebsd.org Subject: Re: what is fsck's "slowdown"? Message-ID: <1094232909.76688.1.camel@elemental.DashEvil> In-Reply-To: <20040903211427.GB1199@gothmog.gr> References: <20040903175434.A812@ganymede.hub.org> <20040903211427.GB1199@gothmog.gr>
index | next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail
On Fri, 2004-09-03 at 21:14, Giorgos Keramidas wrote: > On 2004-09-03 18:01, "Marc G. Fournier" <scrappy@hub.org> wrote: > > > > load: 0.99 cmd: fsck 67 [running] 15192.26u 142.30s 99% 184284k > > /dev/da0s1h: phase 4: cyl group 408 of 866 (47%) > > > > wouldn't it be possible, on a dual CPU system, to have group 434 and above > > run on one process, while group 433 and below running on the second, in > > parallel? Its not like the drives are being beat up: > > My intuition says that if metadata of the first part of the disk references > data residing on the second part synchronization and locking would probably > be a bit difficult; actually very difficult. My intuition tells me that it would be a much better solution to run multiple fsck's concurrently. What harm could there be in fscking (num of processors) partitions at the same time?home | help
Want to link to this message? Use this
URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?1094232909.76688.1.camel>