From owner-freebsd-current@FreeBSD.ORG Wed Oct 1 04:28:25 2003 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 3A58716A4B3 for ; Wed, 1 Oct 2003 04:28:25 -0700 (PDT) Received: from mailout03.sul.t-online.com (mailout03.sul.t-online.com [194.25.134.81]) by mx1.FreeBSD.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 59B1343FEA for ; Wed, 1 Oct 2003 04:28:23 -0700 (PDT) (envelope-from Alexander@Leidinger.net) Received: from fwd07.aul.t-online.de by mailout03.sul.t-online.com with smtp id 1A4f9a-0007hi-02; Wed, 01 Oct 2003 13:28:22 +0200 Received: from Andro-Beta.Leidinger.net (TFx61kZTYeoXkn1mnmXSl5e1QANy98iKdbMByXcm6V3g690XDsY54s@[80.131.127.144]) by fmrl07.sul.t-online.com with esmtp id 1A4f9K-1ZdBb60; Wed, 1 Oct 2003 13:28:06 +0200 Received: from Magelan.Leidinger.net (Magellan [192.168.1.1]) h91BRuHT005698; Wed, 1 Oct 2003 13:27:56 +0200 (CEST) (envelope-from Alexander@Leidinger.net) Received: from Magelan.Leidinger.net (netchild@localhost [127.0.0.1]) h91BRtMx001530; Wed, 1 Oct 2003 13:27:55 +0200 (CEST) (envelope-from Alexander@Leidinger.net) Date: Wed, 1 Oct 2003 13:27:55 +0200 From: Alexander Leidinger To: freebsd-current@freebsd.org Message-Id: <20031001132755.0e6d7061.Alexander@Leidinger.net> In-Reply-To: <20030930194544.H94686@ganymede.hub.org> References: <20030930221148.54E7E5D07@ptavv.es.net> <20030930194544.H94686@ganymede.hub.org> X-Mailer: Sylpheed version 0.9.5claws (GTK+ 1.2.10; i386-portbld-freebsd5.1) Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Seen: false X-ID: TFx61kZTYeoXkn1mnmXSl5e1QANy98iKdbMByXcm6V3g690XDsY54s@t-dialin.net Subject: Re: Improvements to fsck performance in -current ...? 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: Wed, 01 Oct 2003 11:28:25 -0000 On Tue, 30 Sep 2003 19:49:33 -0300 (ADT) "Marc G. Fournier" wrote: > Now,I don't/wouldn't have softupdates enabled on / .. does the 'background > fsck' know to not background if softupdates are not enabled? I'm going to > switch back to -p and look a bit closer the next time it happens (if it > happens) to see if it is/was a softupdate file system that failed, now > that I have a better idea of what I'm looking for ... I can only repeat what Robert already told you, bg-fsck is much better now. > > I suspect that these enhancements may both require that soft updates be > > enabled for the file systems. > > are either of these enhancements back-patchable to the 4.x fsck, or do > they require some non-4.x compatible changes to work? ... I'm at 3.5hrs > and counting right now ... any speedup would be great ... The second enhancement isn't that much magic... just newfs with a large value for "-c" (a recent 4.x-newfs may do it by default, as it does in -current). Together with a larger block size ("-b 16384" if it isn't already the case) and a suitable fragment size ("-f 2048") this will reduce the time fsck will need. Bye, Alexander. -- Loose bits sink chips. http://www.Leidinger.net Alexander @ Leidinger.net GPG fingerprint = C518 BC70 E67F 143F BE91 3365 79E2 9C60 B006 3FE7