According to Mike Beattie, > On Mon, Sep 08, 2003 at 11:47:27PM -0500, Tony Godshall wrote: > > Well, I mount the drives with noatime, which helps. And I > > used to run noflushd. But to be honest I haven't tested the > > spindown issue that much. Mostly I use hdparm to get > > faster disk I/O. By the way, I'm certainly no expert on > > these topics, but I pitched in my two bits when it came to the > > fsck issue, since I agree that it sucks to fsck on battery, > > but the full-fsck-every-few-mounts thing should not be > > disabled entirely. > ... > > : start|restart|reload) > > : if /usr/bin/on_ac_power > > : then > > : FSCK_MOUNTS=10 > > : FSCK_INTERVAL=1w > > : else > > : FSCK_MOUNTS=40 > ... > > : for PART in $PARTS > > : do > > : tune2fs -c $FSCK_MOUNTS -i $FSCK_INTERVAL $PART > > Ok, it's bothering me enough that I'm going to add my $0.02. Wasnt going to. > > *Why* are you doing the tune2fs above? It doesnt do anything except change > the threshold for when a fsck will happen... ok, this may appear to help > when you're on battery power, but it's actually not helping as much as you > think. In all honesty, you should only have a difference of 5 or 10, as > you just want to raise the threshold enough to pass the time you dont have > power - which is likely to only be 5 or 6 mounts max, and perhaps a day or > two?
Well, without any good data, I assumed that if the default of 40 was appropriate for normal use, and I wanted to force a fsck on AC-powered use often enough that it would be unlikely to hit the larger number happen when on battery. > Since 10/1w is far too often, even on a powered system, you'd be quite safe > to leave the settings at about 40/50, with 6m or so. Doesn't actually bother me to do it that often when on A/C. I play with bleeding edge kernels, so better safe than sorry. I also backup via rsync to more stable boxes a lot. > Instead of this approach, how about setting a longer period, and leaving it > there, doing what the manpage suggests - stagger the counts, so that you > only end up checking one fs each time one is needed. > > an example: > /home gets lots of use, so say, 30 mounts. > /var is next, say 37 mounts > /usr next, maybe 43 mounts > / last, perhaps 49 mounts. Well, I don't partition that way. > Those are sufficiently staggered that you'll only get an overlap after > several hundred mounts. > Now, wouldnt that help save your battery more than mucking around with fs > settings that are much safer to leave alone? Are they better left alone? Why? > (another option is to have your script touch /fastboot when on battery, as > that will completely bypass the running of fsck - just make sure it runs > before checkroot.sh!... you'd need a static copy of on_ac_power (well, > awk/grep..), and /etc/rcS.d/S09powercheck.sh or so) Thanks for bringing this up. I wasn't aware of /fastboot. Looks like a good solution. Well, except that / has to be mounted first. Tony -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
