Re: Improvements to fsck performance in -current ...?

2003-11-06 Thread Daniel C. Sobral
Kevin Oberman wrote: To get to UFS2, you must newfs the partition. I don't know of nay other way. The basic improvement in UFS2 is the expansion of many fields to 64 bits to allow for much larger structures. While newfs in V5.1 and CURRENT defaults to UFS2, there are no problems continuing to run

Re: Improvements to fsck performance in -current ...?

2003-10-03 Thread Tim Kientzle
Terry Lambert wrote: Unfortunately, IDE disks do not permit disconnected writes, due to a bug in the original IDE implementation, Therefore IDE disks almost universally lie to the driver any time write caching is enabled on an IDE drive. I understand that SATA has fixed a number of problems

Re: Improvements to fsck performance in -current ...?

2003-10-03 Thread Jens Rehsack
Don Lewis wrote: On 2 Oct, Terry Lambert wrote: [...] Actually, write caching is not so much the problem, as the disk reporting that the write has completed before the contents of the transaction saved in the write cache have actually been committed to stable storage. Unfortunately, IDE disks do

Re: Improvements to fsck performance in -current ...?

2003-10-03 Thread Bill Moran
Jens Rehsack wrote: Don Lewis wrote: On 2 Oct, Terry Lambert wrote: [...] Actually, write caching is not so much the problem, as the disk reporting that the write has completed before the contents of the transaction saved in the write cache have actually been committed to stable storage.

Re: Improvements to fsck performance in -current ...?

2003-10-03 Thread Jens Rehsack
Bill Moran wrote: [...] To me, this means: a) if you want reliable, don't use IDE with WC Reducable of 'don't use IDE' :-) b) if you want reliable and fast, don't use IDE, period, use SCSI. If you look at the recent postings, SCSI didn't help you out everytime. I use the fileserver in current

Re: Improvements to fsck performance in -current ...?

2003-10-03 Thread Marcin Dalecki
Bill Moran wrote: Jens Rehsack wrote: Don Lewis wrote: On 2 Oct, Terry Lambert wrote: [...] Actually, write caching is not so much the problem, as the disk reporting that the write has completed before the contents of the transaction saved in the write cache have actually been committed to

Re: Improvements to fsck performance in -current ...?

2003-10-02 Thread Ollivier Robert
According to Brooks Davis: I believe this problem has been fixed. At least that's what I got out It has been fixed for a few months now. That fix could be backported to stable but it requires careful testing as many files are touched by the change. -- Ollivier ROBERT -=- FreeBSD: The Power to

Re: Improvements to fsck performance in -current ...?

2003-10-02 Thread Terry Lambert
Jens Rehsack wrote: Kevin Oberman wrote: Current has two major changes re speeding up fsck. The most significant is the background operation of fsck on file system with soft updates enabled. Because of the way softupdates works, you are assured of metadata consistency on reboot, so the

Re: Improvements to fsck performance in -current ...?

2003-10-02 Thread Don Lewis
On 2 Oct, Terry Lambert wrote: Jens Rehsack wrote: Kevin Oberman wrote: Current has two major changes re speeding up fsck. The most significant is the background operation of fsck on file system with soft updates enabled. Because of the way softupdates works, you are assured of

Re: Improvements to fsck performance in -current ...?

2003-10-01 Thread Lukas Ertl
On Tue, 30 Sep 2003, Steve Kargl wrote: On Wed, Oct 01, 2003 at 01:04:51AM +0200, Lukas Ertl wrote: are either of these enhancements back-patchable to the 4.x fsck, or do they require some non-4.x compatible changes to work? It's not just the fsck application itself, background fsck

Re: Improvements to fsck performance in -current ...?

2003-10-01 Thread Jens Rehsack
Kevin Oberman wrote: [...] Current has two major changes re speeding up fsck. The most significant is the background operation of fsck on file system with soft updates enabled. Because of the way softupdates works, you are assured of metadata consistency on reboot, so the file systems can be

Re: Improvements to fsck performance in -current ...?

2003-10-01 Thread Alexander Leidinger
On Tue, 30 Sep 2003 16:25:06 -0700 Steve Kargl [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: As soon as Kirk committed the snapshot capability, snapshot became available on UFS1. The only requirement is softupdates and softupdates pre-dates UFS2. Snapshots are available in 4.9? I thought it's not only about the

Re: Improvements to fsck performance in -current ...?

2003-10-01 Thread Alexander Leidinger
On Tue, 30 Sep 2003 19:49:33 -0300 (ADT) Marc G. Fournier [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Now,I don't/wouldn't have softupdates enabled on / .. does the 'background fsck' know to not background if softupdates are not enabled? I'm going to switch back to -p and look a bit closer the next time it

Re: Improvements to fsck performance in -current ...?

2003-10-01 Thread Bernd Walter
On Wed, Oct 01, 2003 at 01:19:26PM +0200, Alexander Leidinger wrote: On Tue, 30 Sep 2003 16:25:06 -0700 Steve Kargl [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: As soon as Kirk committed the snapshot capability, snapshot became available on UFS1. The only requirement is softupdates and softupdates pre-dates

Re: Improvements to fsck performance in -current ...?

2003-10-01 Thread Steve Kargl
On Wed, Oct 01, 2003 at 01:19:26PM +0200, Alexander Leidinger wrote: On Tue, 30 Sep 2003 16:25:06 -0700 Steve Kargl [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: As soon as Kirk committed the snapshot capability, snapshot became available on UFS1. The only requirement is softupdates and softupdates pre-dates

Re: Improvements to fsck performance in -current ...?

2003-10-01 Thread Alexander Leidinger
On Wed, 1 Oct 2003 07:22:58 -0700 Steve Kargl [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: On Wed, Oct 01, 2003 at 01:19:26PM +0200, Alexander Leidinger wrote: On Tue, 30 Sep 2003 16:25:06 -0700 Steve Kargl [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: As soon as Kirk committed the snapshot capability, snapshot became

Re: Improvements to fsck performance in -current ...?

2003-10-01 Thread Kevin Oberman
Date: Wed, 01 Oct 2003 06:39:47 + From: Jens Rehsack [EMAIL PROTECTED] Kevin Oberman wrote: [...] Current has two major changes re speeding up fsck. The most significant is the background operation of fsck on file system with soft updates enabled. Because of the way

Re: Improvements to fsck performance in -current ...?

2003-10-01 Thread Jens Rehsack
Kevin Oberman wrote: Date: Wed, 01 Oct 2003 06:39:47 + From: Jens Rehsack [EMAIL PROTECTED] Kevin Oberman wrote: [...] Current has two major changes re speeding up fsck. The most significant is the background operation of fsck on file system with soft updates enabled. Because of the way

Improvements to fsck performance in -current ...?

2003-09-30 Thread Marc G. Fournier
Due to an electrician flipping the wrong circuit breaker this morning, I had my servers go down hard ... they are all -STABLE, with one of the four taking a *very* long time to fsck: jupiter# ps aux | grep fsck root 361 99.0 2.3 95572 95508 p0 R+4:21PM 121:13.21 fsck -y /dev/da0s1h

Re: Improvements to fsck performance in -current ...?

2003-09-30 Thread Kevin Oberman
Date: Tue, 30 Sep 2003 18:42:21 -0300 (ADT) From: Marc G. Fournier [EMAIL PROTECTED] Sender: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Due to an electrician flipping the wrong circuit breaker this morning, I had my servers go down hard ... they are all -STABLE, with one of the four taking a *very* long time to

Re: Improvements to fsck performance in -current ...?

2003-09-30 Thread Marc G. Fournier
On Tue, 30 Sep 2003, Kevin Oberman wrote: Current has two major changes re speeding up fsck. The most significant is the background operation of fsck on file system with soft updates enabled. Because of the way softupdates works, you are assured of metadata consistency on reboot, so the

Re: Improvements to fsck performance in -current ...?

2003-09-30 Thread Lukas Ertl
On Tue, 30 Sep 2003, Marc G. Fournier wrote: Now,I don't/wouldn't have softupdates enabled on / .. does the 'background fsck' know to not background if softupdates are not enabled? Yes, this is no problem, if the FS doesn't have SU, it just checks it the old way. Since / is usually rather

Re: Improvements to fsck performance in -current ...?

2003-09-30 Thread Steve Kargl
On Wed, Oct 01, 2003 at 01:04:51AM +0200, Lukas Ertl wrote: are either of these enhancements back-patchable to the 4.x fsck, or do they require some non-4.x compatible changes to work? It's not just the fsck application itself, background fsck basically needs file system snapshots, which

Re: Improvements to fsck performance in -current ...?

2003-09-30 Thread Marc G. Fournier
On Wed, 1 Oct 2003, Lukas Ertl wrote: are either of these enhancements back-patchable to the 4.x fsck, or do they require some non-4.x compatible changes to work? It's not just the fsck application itself, background fsck basically needs file system snapshots, which are only available on

Re: Improvements to fsck performance in -current ...?

2003-09-30 Thread Brooks Davis
On Tue, Sep 30, 2003 at 04:44:30PM -0700, Kevin Oberman wrote: Date: Tue, 30 Sep 2003 20:28:20 -0300 (ADT) From: Marc G. Fournier [EMAIL PROTECTED] On Wed, 1 Oct 2003, Lukas Ertl wrote: are either of these enhancements back-patchable to the 4.x fsck, or do they require some

Re: Improvements to fsck performance in -current ...?

2003-09-30 Thread Christian Weisgerber
Lukas Ertl [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: It's not just the fsck application itself, background fsck basically needs file system snapshots, which are only available on UFS2, and I'm not sure if they can be backported to UFS1 at all. Huh? Snapshots are available for both UFS1 and UFS2, but only on

Re: Improvements to fsck performance in -current ...?

2003-09-30 Thread Robert Watson
On Tue, 30 Sep 2003, Marc G. Fournier wrote: Current has two major changes re speeding up fsck. The most significant is the background operation of fsck on file system with soft updates enabled. Because of the way softupdates works, you are assured of metadata consistency on reboot, so