Subject: Re: Making FFS fsck faster
To: Greywolf <email@example.com>
From: Courtney R. Spencer <firstname.lastname@example.org>
Date: 04/19/2005 19:48:35
On Tue Apr 19, 2005 at 04:29:15PM -0700, Greywolf wrote:
> [Thus spake Matthias Petermann ("MP: ") 9:32pm...]
> MP: Hi,
> MP: last week I got a very worse experience on NetBSD FFS. I had to wait for
> MP: about 7 minutes to complete a fsck of a 120 GB FFS disklabel,
> MP: after my box crashed.
> Please tell me you didn't put everything under that 120GB. :)
> I know, I know, partitioning disks doesn't really help much and "makes
> no sense now that we have larger disks", but I find that if I isolate
> at least the OS-critical filesystems (/, /usr (or / and /usr), and /var)
> to appropriately sized partitions, I can at least come up much quicker
> and then, if I need to, I can run the remaining partitions later and
> bring them on line as they become ready.
fsck a default mounted / that is only 64 mb lately?
/usr and /var may be separate but you still need them
so you would not mount the dirty filesystems so you
still need to fsck them, regardless of your partitioning
It still takes a lot of relative time even with only 64 mb and
using a small / partition caused me many headaches that had to
be semi-fixed with either null mounts for mfs based /tmp
depending on the system build.
Oh yeah, some of these systems are running on alpha with scsi
disks and the fsck performance is no better than an x86 box
with ide. The alphas have 9 gig disks and the PC had a 20 gig
disc. So I, for one, am interested in the original question
about lfs and snapshot scripts since partitioning schemes
only take you so far and still result in hair loss.
Courtney R. Spencer