Date: Tue, 18 Mar 2003 10:18:36 +1030 From: Greg 'groggy' Lehey <grog@FreeBSD.org> To: Poul-Henning Kamp <phk@phk.freebsd.dk> Cc: Bakul Shah <bakul@bitblocks.com>, Julian Elischer <julian@elischer.org>, FreeBSD current users <current@FreeBSD.ORG>, fs@FreeBSD.ORG Subject: Re: Anyone working on fsck? Message-ID: <20030317234836.GG9422@wantadilla.lemis.com> In-Reply-To: <54291.1047937142@critter.freebsd.dk> References: <200303172126.QAA23205@thunderer.cnchost.com> <54291.1047937142@critter.freebsd.dk>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
--sClP8c1IaQxyux9v Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline On Monday, 17 March 2003 at 22:39:02 +0100, Poul-Henning Kamp wrote: > In message <200303172126.QAA23205@thunderer.cnchost.com>, Bakul Shah writes: > >> UFS is the real problem here, not fsck. Its tradeoffs for >> improving normal access latencies may have been right in the >> past but not for modern big disks. The seek time & RPM have >> not improved very much in the past 20 years while disk >> capacity has increased by a factor of about 20,000 (and GB/$ >> even more). IMHO there is not much you can do at the fsck >> level -- you stil have to visit all the cyl groups and what >> not. Even a factor of 10 improvement in fsck means 36 >> minutes which is far too long. > > Now, before we go off and design YABFS, can we just get real for > a second ? > > I have been tending UNIX computers of all sorts for many years and > there is one bit of wisdom that has yet to fail me: > > Every now and then, boot in single-user and run full fsck > on all filesystems. > > If this had failed to be productive, I would have given up the > habit years ago, but it is still a good idea it seems. > > Personally, I think background-fsck is close to the ideal situation > since I can skip the "boot in single-user" part of the above > profylactic. > > If you start to implement any sort of journaling (that is what you > talked about in your email), you might as well just stop right at > the "clean" bit, and avoid the complexity. > > Optimizing fsck is a valid project, I just wish it would be somebody > who would also finish the last 30% who would do it. Poul-Henning, how can you justify the second half of that sentence? I take exception to the implications. In case anybody is in any doubt, I've heard you say this sort of thing about julian before. Please don't do it again. This is without my core hat. As most people here know, core has warned you about this kind of behaviour multiple times before. What I say here in no way prejudices what core may decide to do about the incident. Greg -- See complete headers for address and phone numbers --sClP8c1IaQxyux9v Content-Type: application/pgp-signature Content-Disposition: inline -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- Version: GnuPG v1.2.0 (FreeBSD) iD8DBQE+dl7UIubykFB6QiMRAthBAKCoHeaOjJA0BhrK3DGHsMo4/mxeRQCcCk+0 vFHr1g1z5HkRNh25+bE9yd4= =nfRO -----END PGP SIGNATURE----- --sClP8c1IaQxyux9v-- To Unsubscribe: send mail to majordomo@FreeBSD.org with "unsubscribe freebsd-fs" in the body of the message
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?20030317234836.GG9422>