Date: Sat, 25 Aug 2001 08:55:38 +0200 From: Poul-Henning Kamp <phk@critter.freebsd.dk> To: "David W. Chapman Jr." <dwcjr@inethouston.net> Cc: Mike Smith <msmith@FreeBSD.ORG>, current@FreeBSD.ORG Subject: Re: diskcheckd is poo Message-ID: <32127.998722538@critter> In-Reply-To: Your message of "Fri, 24 Aug 2001 18:12:13 CDT." <20010824181213.I5230@leviathan.inethouston.net>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
In message <20010824181213.I5230@leviathan.inethouston.net>, "David W. Chapman Jr." writes: >On Fri, Aug 24, 2001 at 04:14:24PM -0700, Mike Smith wrote: >> >> If we want a surface scrubber, we ought to have a "real" one; it's >> also very, very bad in the laptop context (since it keeps waking your >> disks up). >> >I have the shar of the port up at >http://people.freebsd.org:~/dwcjr/diskcheckd.shar I believe. its >already in the ports, I'm just awaiting a repo copy of the files from >/usr/src/usr.sbin/diskcheckd into ports/sysutils/diskcheckd/files There are very good reason why serious disk systems like NetApp and IBM's boxes have a scrubber, and these reasons extend fully into machines with a 60GB disk which is only marginally accessed. I think diskcheckd should stay in the main system, but be turned off by default (at least until better heuristics for default operation has been devised.) -- Poul-Henning Kamp | UNIX since Zilog Zeus 3.20 phk@FreeBSD.ORG | TCP/IP since RFC 956 FreeBSD committer | BSD since 4.3-tahoe Never attribute to malice what can adequately be explained by incompetence. To Unsubscribe: send mail to majordomo@FreeBSD.org with "unsubscribe freebsd-current" in the body of the message
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?32127.998722538>