Messages in this thread | | | From | Pete Zaitcev <> | Subject | fsck is dead (was: Some very thought-provoking ...) | Date | Mon, 21 Jun 1999 16:57:31 -0700 (PDT) |
| |
>From: Malcolm Beattie <mbeattie@sable.ox.ac.uk> >Date: Mon, 21 Jun 1999 15:55:51 +0100 (BST)
>Pavel Machek writes: >> Or 3 hours of power fault and 3 hours of fsck... Which is exactly what >> happens on ~100Gig disks. > >Please don't guess/exaggerate: I've already posted fsck benchmark >times to this mailing list a month ago. In particular, fsck for a >43 GB ext2 filesystem (4K blocks) with 30 GB in use took 13 minutes.
I heard one interesting presentation by John Mashey which basically maintains that the capacity of disks increases its growth rate and grows faster than the disk interconnect speed and faster than CPU speeds. Disk capacities reached rate of 60% per annum.
So in the long run you will not be able to do traditional fsck which scans a volume, which is O(capacity). Journal commit, which is O(outstaning_data_size) may be done if we constrain journal size growth rate. May be I am getting something wrong but this is how I see things.
Pavel sounds non-scientific and guesses perhaps. But strangely enough he got it right. We are going to see 144GB disks in two years time.
--Pete
- 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/
| |