From owner-freebsd-stable@FreeBSD.ORG Tue Apr 12 16:03:26 2011 Return-Path: Delivered-To: freebsd-stable@freebsd.org Received: from mx1.freebsd.org (mx1.freebsd.org [IPv6:2001:4f8:fff6::34]) by hub.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 1DD55106564A for ; Tue, 12 Apr 2011 16:03:26 +0000 (UTC) (envelope-from prvs=10833eeaae=killing@multiplay.co.uk) Received: from mail1.multiplay.co.uk (mail1.multiplay.co.uk [85.236.96.23]) by mx1.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id AA09C8FC08 for ; Tue, 12 Apr 2011 16:03:25 +0000 (UTC) X-MDAV-Processed: mail1.multiplay.co.uk, Tue, 12 Apr 2011 16:51:27 +0100 X-Spam-Processed: mail1.multiplay.co.uk, Tue, 12 Apr 2011 16:51:27 +0100 X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 3.2.5 (2008-06-10) on mail1.multiplay.co.uk X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-5.0 required=6.0 tests=USER_IN_WHITELIST shortcircuit=ham autolearn=disabled version=3.2.5 Received: from r2d2 ([188.220.16.49]) by mail1.multiplay.co.uk (mail1.multiplay.co.uk [85.236.96.23]) (MDaemon PRO v10.0.4) with ESMTP id md50012887856.msg for ; Tue, 12 Apr 2011 16:51:25 +0100 X-MDRemoteIP: 188.220.16.49 X-Return-Path: prvs=10833eeaae=killing@multiplay.co.uk X-Envelope-From: killing@multiplay.co.uk X-MDaemon-Deliver-To: freebsd-stable@freebsd.org Message-ID: From: "Steven Hartland" To: "Sergi Seira" , References: <4DA45264.2090501@cdmon.com> Date: Tue, 12 Apr 2011 16:51:33 +0100 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; format=flowed; charset="iso-8859-1"; reply-type=response Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Priority: 3 X-MSMail-Priority: Normal X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook Express 6.00.2900.5931 X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V6.00.2900.5994 Cc: Subject: Re: background fsck high load on 8.1 X-BeenThere: freebsd-stable@freebsd.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.5 Precedence: list List-Id: Production branch of FreeBSD source code List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Tue, 12 Apr 2011 16:03:26 -0000 The cpu requirements are usually quite low for fsck, what your most likely seeing is disk contention due to the amount of IO. Personally I would recommend to consider moving to 8.2 + ZFS as our filing system as it removes fsck from the equation, as well as giving lots of other benefits. Regards Steve ----- Original Message ----- From: "Sergi Seira" To: Sent: Tuesday, April 12, 2011 2:23 PM Subject: background fsck high load on 8.1 > Hello, > > we've experienced that background fsck on 8.1 degrades server performance on a higher degree than in previous fbsd versions > (6.3, 7.3; amd64). > > We've noticed it after upgrading - same hardware - to a 8.1-RELEASE. > Now, performance of other services (i.e. apache, mysql) during a background fsck falls miserably. > > Is there any way to calm fsck down?, nice(1)?, some sysctl? > > We have also gmirror, but we prevent to rebuild it if there is a fsck running in background. ================================================ This e.mail is private and confidential between Multiplay (UK) Ltd. and the person or entity to whom it is addressed. In the event of misdirection, the recipient is prohibited from using, copying, printing or otherwise disseminating it or any information contained in it. In the event of misdirection, illegible or incomplete transmission please telephone +44 845 868 1337 or return the E.mail to postmaster@multiplay.co.uk.