Messages in this thread | | | From | "Stephen C. Tweedie" <> | Date | Wed, 16 Jun 1999 16:32:44 +0100 (BST) | Subject | Re: Speeding up fsck 2 times |
| |
Hi,
On Thu, 10 Jun 1999 17:10:37 +0200, Pavel Machek <pavel@bug.ucw.cz> said:
> People cry for ext3, because they want faster fsck. Really, ext2 does > horribly when it comes to fsck: for me fsck took 6 minutes. ... Also, > ext2 does pretty bad when it comes to deleting large files:
Use large block sizes then. It makes a huge difference.
> This has one common problem under it: indirect blocks are spread all > over the media with big holes between them.
They are close to the data, though. Placing indirect information in a separate cluster of blocks may make it easier to do metadata-only operations like fsck and unlink, but it will just slow down things which actually access data too. That seems like a crazy thing to want to do!
--Stephen
- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in the body of a message to majordomo@vger.rutgers.edu Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
| |