Re: what is fsck's "slowdown"?

On 2004-09-03 17:35, Chris Laverdure <dashevil_at_sympatico.ca> wrote:
> On Fri, 2004-09-03 at 21:14, Giorgos Keramidas wrote:
> > (Regarding "parallelization" of fsck by spawning many instances of
> > fsck for parts of the same partition...)
> >
> > 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?

AFAIK, this is exactly what "background fsck" does in 5.X :-)