On 7 Nov, Marc G. Fournier wrote: > On Sat, 6 Nov 2004, Don Lewis wrote: > >> On 6 Nov, Marc G. Fournier wrote: >>> >>> Well, finally had a reason to use it, and its running right now ... seems >>> a bit slower in phase 2 then before ... is to be expected? Looking >>> through the patch, it seems that all pass's were affected, so this might >>> be now the norm ... after ~39minutes running on a very large file system, >>> hitting ctl-T periodically, I'm up to about 50% through Phase 2 ... so far >>> *knock on wood* no errors being generated by fsck itself, but that doesn't >>> mean anything :) >> >> Under normal circumstances, there shouldn't be any noticeable difference >> in performance. If there are a lot of zero link count files, phase 1 >> should be very slightly faster because the zero link count file list no >> longer needs to be allocated, and phase 4 should be a lot faster. Most >> of the time in phases 1 and 2 is consumed by disk reads. The only >> change to phase 2 was the addition of the new inode states to a couple >> of case statements and an if statement which should not affect the >> amount of I/O done and CPU time would only be affected by a miniscule >> amount, so I would not expect any change to the performance of that >> phase. > > Hindsight is 20/20, but I should have trap' the output ... I saw several > 'ZERO LENGTH DIRECTORY' messages in Phase 4 still ... should I have seen > any at all?
Yes. The behaviour should be exactly the same as before. The only difference is that phase 4 should run a lot faster if there are a lot of UNREF files and directories. _______________________________________________ [EMAIL PROTECTED] mailing list http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-stable To unsubscribe, send any mail to "[EMAIL PROTECTED]"
