Re: Improvements to fsck performance in -current ...?

From: Alexander Leidinger (Alexander_at_Leidinger.net)
Date: 10/01/03

  • Next message: Bernd Walter: "Re: Improvements to fsck performance in -current ...?" 
    Date: Wed, 1 Oct 2003 13:27:55 +0200
To: freebsd-current@freebsd.org

    On Tue, 30 Sep 2003 19:49:33 -0300 (ADT)
    "Marc G. Fournier" <scrappy@hub.org> 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
_______________________________________________
freebsd-current@freebsd.org mailing list
http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-current
To unsubscribe, send any mail to "freebsd-current-unsubscribe@freebsd.org"
  • Next message: Bernd Walter: "Re: Improvements to fsck performance in -current ...?"

    Relevant Pages

    • Re: Improvements to fsck performance in -current ...?
      ... >> The most significant is the background operation of fsck on file system ... Because of the way softupdates works, ... sysinstall doesn't enable soft updates on / by default, ...
      (freebsd-current)
    • Re: dangerous situation with shutdown process
      ... softupdates sometimes do take a long ... >>then fsck, then shutdown. ... Actually an fsck on a live filesystem will force the softupdates to ... You can fsck a mounted file system and fsck will run in read-only ...
      (freebsd-stable)
    • Re: Filesystem is not clean - run fsck
      ... >> disk to allow soft updates. ... or at least mounted r/o. ... Not sure if fsck then has to run on the unmounted ... softupdates, but it'll still fsck the system at startup. ...
      (comp.unix.bsd.freebsd.misc)
    • Re: Improvements to fsck performance in -current ...?
      ... On Tue, 30 Sep 2003, Marc G. Fournier wrote: ... > fsck' know to not background if softupdates are not enabled? ... >> enabled for the file systems. ... > are either of these enhancements back-patchable to the 4.x fsck, ...
      (freebsd-current)
    • Re: Improvements to fsck performance in -current ...?
      ... > The most significant is the background operation of fsck on file system ... Because of the way softupdates works, ... switch back to -p and look a bit closer the next time it happens (if it ...
      (freebsd-current)