Date: Sat, 4 Sep 2004 00:50:55 +0300 From: Giorgos Keramidas <keramida@linux.gr> To: Chris Laverdure <dashevil@sympatico.ca> Cc: freebsd-current@freebsd.org Subject: Re: what is fsck's "slowdown"? Message-ID: <20040903215054.GD1199@gothmog.gr> In-Reply-To: <1094232909.76688.1.camel@elemental.DashEvil> References: <20040903175434.A812@ganymede.hub.org> <20040903211427.GB1199@gothmog.gr> <1094232909.76688.1.camel@elemental.DashEvil>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
On 2004-09-03 17:35, Chris Laverdure <dashevil@sympatico.ca> wrote: > On Fri, 2004-09-03 at 21:14, Giorgos Keramidas wrote: > > (Regarding "parallelization" of fsck by spawning many instances of > > fsck for parts of the same partition...) > > > > 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? AFAIK, this is exactly what "background fsck" does in 5.X :-)
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?20040903215054.GD1199>