Date: Fri, 03 Sep 2004 17:35:10 +0000 From: Chris Laverdure <dashevil@sympatico.ca> To: Giorgos Keramidas <keramida@linux.gr> Cc: freebsd-current@freebsd.org Subject: Re: what is fsck's "slowdown"? Message-ID: <1094232909.76688.1.camel@elemental.DashEvil> In-Reply-To: <20040903211427.GB1199@gothmog.gr> References: <20040903175434.A812@ganymede.hub.org> <20040903211427.GB1199@gothmog.gr>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
On Fri, 2004-09-03 at 21:14, Giorgos Keramidas wrote: > On 2004-09-03 18:01, "Marc G. Fournier" <scrappy@hub.org> wrote: > > > > load: 0.99 cmd: fsck 67 [running] 15192.26u 142.30s 99% 184284k > > /dev/da0s1h: phase 4: cyl group 408 of 866 (47%) > > > > wouldn't it be possible, on a dual CPU system, to have group 434 and above > > run on one process, while group 433 and below running on the second, in > > parallel? Its not like the drives are being beat up: > > 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?
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?1094232909.76688.1.camel>