From owner-freebsd-current@FreeBSD.ORG Sat Sep 4 03:42:21 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 7874D16A4CE for ; Sat, 4 Sep 2004 03:42:21 +0000 (GMT) Received: from ganymede.hub.org (blk-222-46-91.eastlink.ca [24.222.46.91]) by mx1.FreeBSD.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 4492043D46 for ; Sat, 4 Sep 2004 03:42:21 +0000 (GMT) (envelope-from scrappy@hub.org) Received: by ganymede.hub.org (Postfix, from userid 1000) id D72003A9BC; Sat, 4 Sep 2004 00:42:17 -0300 (ADT) Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ganymede.hub.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id D5F3C3A9B5; Sat, 4 Sep 2004 00:42:17 -0300 (ADT) Date: Sat, 4 Sep 2004 00:42:17 -0300 (ADT) From: "Marc G. Fournier" To: Giorgos Keramidas In-Reply-To: <20040903215054.GD1199@gothmog.gr> Message-ID: <20040904004104.C812@ganymede.hub.org> References: <20040903175434.A812@ganymede.hub.org> <20040903211427.GB1199@gothmog.gr><20040903215054.GD1199@gothmog.gr> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII; format=flowed cc: Chris Laverdure 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: Sat, 04 Sep 2004 03:42:21 -0000 On Sat, 4 Sep 2004, Giorgos Keramidas wrote: > 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 :-) fsck -p in 4.x does this also .. but, when there is only one large file system, and 4 or 5 smaller ones, those 4 or 5 smaller ones don't take long t do ... in my case, that one large one just took 12hrs to complete, on a system where that one fsck was the only thing running :( I don't believe that moving to 5.x's bkgd fsck will speed that up any, and, in fact, would probably slow it down since it will be completing with other processes ... ---- Marc G. Fournier Hub.Org Networking Services (http://www.hub.org) Email: scrappy@hub.org Yahoo!: yscrappy ICQ: 7615664