On Mon, Apr 11, 2011 at 01:42:29PM +0200, Otto Moerbeek wrote:
> Please remove this diff from your tree for the moment.
>
> I have found a bug.
>
> More to follow soon.
>
> -Otto
So here's the new version. You might notice it's the same as the
original diff posted in another thread. A sl
Please remove this diff from your tree for the moment.
I have found a bug.
More to follow soon.
-Otto
Thanks! I understand.
On Thu, Apr 7, 2011 at 11:09 AM, Otto Moerbeek wrote:
> On Thu, Apr 07, 2011 at 11:05:42AM -0500, Amit Kulkarni wrote:
>
>> >> Also, depending on the usage patterns, you might have a fs where high
>> >> numbered inodes are used, while the fs itself is pretty empty. Filling
>
>> Also, depending on the usage patterns, you might have a fs where high
>> numbered inodes are used, while the fs itself is pretty empty. Filling
>> up a fs with lots of files and them removing a lot of them is an
>> example that could lead to such a situation. This diff does not speed
>> things u
On Thu, Apr 07, 2011 at 11:05:42AM -0500, Amit Kulkarni wrote:
> >> Also, depending on the usage patterns, you might have a fs where high
> >> numbered inodes are used, while the fs itself is pretty empty. Filling
> >> up a fs with lots of files and them removing a lot of them is an
> >> example t
On 2011-04-07 17.19, Otto Moerbeek wrote:
> softdep does not change the layout. But only filesystems which were
> mounted with softdep get this optimization. There's a flag in teh
> superblock to signal that. Filesystem mounted with softdep have better
> guarantees about the cylinder group headers
On Thu, Apr 07, 2011 at 04:28:25PM +0200, Benny Lofgren wrote:
> On 2011-04-07 15.06, Otto Moerbeek wrote:
> > On Thu, Apr 07, 2011 at 02:34:27PM +0200, Benny Lofgren wrote:
> >
> >> On 2011-04-07 11.08, Otto Moerbeek wrote:
> >>> Hi,
> >>>
> >>> I got little feedeback on this diff posed in a rat
On 2011-04-07 15.06, Otto Moerbeek wrote:
> On Thu, Apr 07, 2011 at 02:34:27PM +0200, Benny Lofgren wrote:
>
>> On 2011-04-07 11.08, Otto Moerbeek wrote:
>>> Hi,
>>>
>>> I got little feedeback on this diff posed in a rather long thread, so
>>> I am posting it again.
>>>
>>> Please test this, it ma
On Thu, Apr 07, 2011 at 02:34:27PM +0200, Benny Lofgren wrote:
> On 2011-04-07 11.08, Otto Moerbeek wrote:
> > Hi,
> >
> > I got little feedeback on this diff posed in a rather long thread, so
> > I am posting it again.
> >
> > Please test this, it makes fsck_ffs much faster (especially with -p)
On 2011-04-07 11.08, Otto Moerbeek wrote:
> Hi,
>
> I got little feedeback on this diff posed in a rather long thread, so
> I am posting it again.
>
> Please test this, it makes fsck_ffs much faster (especially with -p)
> and less memory hungry in a lot of cases.
I've run it on a variety of file
On Thu, Apr 07, 2011 at 11:08:05AM +0200, Otto Moerbeek wrote:
> Hi,
>
> I got little feedeback on this diff posed in a rather long thread, so
> I am posting it again.
>
> Please test this, it makes fsck_ffs much faster (especially with -p)
> and less memory hungry in a lot of cases.
>
> Note th
Hi,
I got little feedeback on this diff posed in a rather long thread, so
I am posting it again.
Please test this, it makes fsck_ffs much faster (especially with -p)
and less memory hungry in a lot of cases.
Note that to force a check with -p you need to unmount the filesystem,
mosty practical i
12 matches
Mail list logo
