On Tue, 30 Sep 2003 19:49:33 -0300 (ADT) "Marc G. Fournier" <scrappy_at_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 _at_ Leidinger.net GPG fingerprint = C518 BC70 E67F 143F BE91 3365 79E2 9C60 B006 3FE7Received on Wed Oct 01 2003 - 02:28:25 UTC
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.4.0 : Wed May 19 2021 - 11:37:24 UTC