Subject: Re: Minimum swap size
To: David Brownlee <>
From: David Laight <>
List: tech-kern
Date: 05/20/2003 09:50:12
> 	I tend to crank up the block/fragment size, which for my uses
> 	speeds things up a bit in use, and also in fsck as there is a
> 	fraction of the metadata...

I did wonder whether fsck uses any of the obvious tricks to avoid
disk seeks (like reading all the directory blocks in ascending order
and not really caring which file indirect blocks refer to).

Clearly if it finds a block that is allocated multiple times there
is more work - but most faults are just errors in the allocation maps.


David Laight: