[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-Id: <200801191955.41980.phillips@phunq.net>
Date: Sat, 19 Jan 2008 19:55:41 -0800
From: Daniel Phillips <phillips@...nq.net>
To: Andrew Morton <akpm@...ux-foundation.org>
Cc: Abhishek Rai <abhishekrai@...gle.com>,
linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, rohitseth@...gle.com,
linux-ext4@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [CALL FOR TESTING] Make Ext3 fsck way faster [2.6.24-rc6 -mm patch]
On Tuesday 15 January 2008 03:04, Andrew Morton wrote:
> I'm wondering about the real value of this change, really.
>
> In any decent environment, people will fsck their ext3 filesystems
> during planned downtime, and the benefit of reducing that downtime
> from 6 hours/machine to 2 hours/machine is probably fairly small,
> given that there is no service interruption. (The same applies to
> desktops and laptops).
>
> Sure, the benefit is not *zero*, but it's small. Much less than it
> would be with ext2. I mean, the "avoid unplanned fscks" feature is
> the whole reason why ext3 has journalling (and boy is that feature
> expensive during normal operation).
>
> So... it's unobvious that the benefit of this feature is worth its
> risks and costs?
Since I am waiting for an Ext3 fsck to complete right now, I thought I
would while away the time by tagging on my "me too" to the concensus
that faster fsck is indeed worth the cost, which is (ahem) free.
Regards,
Daniel
-
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-ext4" in
the body of a message to majordomo@...r.kernel.org
More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Powered by blists - more mailing lists