Subject: Re: Progress meter for fsck, revisited
To: Jason Thorpe <firstname.lastname@example.org>
From: Greywolf <email@example.com>
Date: 01/13/2004 13:44:01
Thus spake Jason Thorpe ("JT> ") sometime Today...
JT> On Jan 13, 2004, at 1:29 PM, Greywolf wrote:
JT> > Don't those two kind of conflict, since -p == (parallel | preen)?
JT> > [i.e. I have never seen fsck go parallel without the -p option.]
JT> > I would say that you might want to have -P work with parallelisation
JT> > such that it only uses one meter.
JT> -p == preen. It is really orthogonal to parallelization. So, no, it
JT> doesn't conflict.
...so parallelisation is on by default? Still think it'd be possible
to meter-merge it (the same way as is done with preen). Since you have
to evaluate the order in which to run in parallel, nothing stopping ya
from getting the FS sizes ahead of time and adding them up...
JT> -- Jason R. Thorpe <firstname.lastname@example.org>
22 Ways to Get Yourself Killed While Watching 'The Lord Of The Rings':
#9: Dress up as old ladies and reenact "The Battle of Helms Deep"
-- Monty Python style.