From owner-freebsd-current@FreeBSD.ORG Fri Sep 3 21:52:50 2004 Return-Path: Delivered-To: freebsd-current@freebsd.org Received: from mx1.FreeBSD.org (mx1.freebsd.org [216.136.204.125]) by hub.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 7052016A4CE for ; Fri, 3 Sep 2004 21:52:50 +0000 (GMT) Received: from kane.otenet.gr (kane.otenet.gr [195.170.0.27]) by mx1.FreeBSD.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id ACCB343D1F for ; Fri, 3 Sep 2004 21:52:49 +0000 (GMT) (envelope-from keramida@linux.gr) Received: from gothmog.gr (patr530-a048.otenet.gr [212.205.215.48]) i83LqkSZ027329; Sat, 4 Sep 2004 00:52:47 +0300 Received: from gothmog.gr (gothmog [127.0.0.1]) by gothmog.gr (8.13.1/8.13.1) with ESMTP id i83Lou9X041279; Sat, 4 Sep 2004 00:50:56 +0300 (EEST) (envelope-from keramida@linux.gr) Received: (from giorgos@localhost) by gothmog.gr (8.13.1/8.13.1/Submit) id i83Lot6u041248; Sat, 4 Sep 2004 00:50:55 +0300 (EEST) (envelope-from keramida@linux.gr) Date: Sat, 4 Sep 2004 00:50:55 +0300 From: Giorgos Keramidas To: Chris Laverdure Message-ID: <20040903215054.GD1199@gothmog.gr> References: <20040903175434.A812@ganymede.hub.org> <20040903211427.GB1199@gothmog.gr> <1094232909.76688.1.camel@elemental.DashEvil> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <1094232909.76688.1.camel@elemental.DashEvil> Phone: +30-2610-312145 Mobile: +30-6944-116520 cc: freebsd-current@freebsd.org Subject: Re: what is fsck's "slowdown"? X-BeenThere: freebsd-current@freebsd.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.1 Precedence: list List-Id: Discussions about the use of FreeBSD-current List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Fri, 03 Sep 2004 21:52:50 -0000 On 2004-09-03 17:35, Chris Laverdure 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 :-)