Re: what is fsck's "slowdown"?

From: Chris Laverdure <dashevil_at_sympatico.ca>
Date: Fri, 03 Sep 2004 17:35:10 +0000
On Fri, 2004-09-03 at 21:14, Giorgos Keramidas wrote:
> On 2004-09-03 18:01, "Marc G. Fournier" <scrappy_at_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?
Received on Fri Sep 03 2004 - 19:35:17 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.4.0 : Wed May 19 2021 - 11:38:10 UTC