Better fsck on boot ???
in [General Linux]
|
Prev: FC12, ethernet interface stops working
Next: 3D linux?
From: Kevin the Drummer on 10 May 2010 12:39 wisdomkiller & pain <newbuntu.20.eatallspam(a)spamgourmet.com> wrote: > Try ext4, it appears mature enough for daily usage. Looking around the web it looks like ext4 fscks 6-8 times faster than ext3. This could buy me some time before fsck again takes too long, at least until everyone in the technical world has their entire video collection stored on their phones. ;-) I supposed that faster disks could help too. My disks are almost all PATA, aka ATA/100. > You can convert your /home to ext4 as an example, but you need > to run some task afterwards as I remember (google for the > procedure) to gain full benefit. I found a good link for that here: https://ext4.wiki.kernel.org/index.php/Ext4_Howto \ #Converting_an_ext3_filesystem_to_ext4 > / has to be checked at boot time, you may split it into /, > /usr, /var and make sure they are not checked the same time - > but it's tiresome to do and of course needs a backup. The time for fsck to check / containing both /usr and /var on my system is only a small portion of the total check time. > /home doesn't have to be checked that early, but before a user > other than root logs on and it has to be mounted. It's the time from starting the boot to full usability by a user that I'm trying to minimize. > Another alternative for /home and /data partitions would be > xfs, which doesn't even have a fsck at boot time but xfs_check > and xfsrepair is still available and do great work. However, > xfs can be sluggish in particular when deleting or moving lots > of small files. I do a lot of audio work. Some of that is with Audacity, which makes lots of small audio files. Some work is with Ardour, which when recording, needs lots of realtime fast disk access. I'm not sure how xfs would perform there. But, I'm sure it's been discussed, and that I can find those discussions documented on the net somewhere. Thanks for the ext4 pointer! -- PLEASE post a SUMMARY of the answer(s) to your question(s)! Unless otherwise noted, the statements herein reflect my personal opinions and not those of any organization with which I may be affiliated.
From: J G Miller on 10 May 2010 18:50 On Mon, 10 May 2010 11:39:01 -0500, Kevin the Drummer wrote: > My disks are almost all PATA, aka ATA/100. I hope for the sake of performance that you never put more than one disk on an IDE controller.
From: Kevin the Drummer on 11 May 2010 15:40 J G Miller <miller(a)yoyo.ORG> wrote: > On Mon, 10 May 2010 11:39:01 -0500, Kevin the Drummer wrote: > > > My disks are almost all PATA, aka ATA/100. > > I hope for the sake of performance that you never put more than > one disk on an IDE controller. One PATA drive and one DVD drive per controller. I have multiple computers facing the same fsck slowness, which is why I made the statement about having "almost all" of my disks being PATA. It's good to remember your point though. I wonder if fsck will go faster when I start using SATA drives. Anyone know the stat's on that? Thanks.... -- PLEASE post a SUMMARY of the answer(s) to your question(s)! Unless otherwise noted, the statements herein reflect my personal opinions and not those of any organization with which I may be affiliated.
From: wisdomkiller & pain on 11 May 2010 18:22
Kevin the Drummer wrote: ..... > One PATA drive and one DVD drive per controller. I have multiple > computers facing the same fsck slowness, which is why I made the > statement about having "almost all" of my disks being PATA. > > It's good to remember your point though. > Devices on the same pata cable should be of comparable (u)dma speed, so when your cd/dvd drives only have UDMA/33, your UDMA/100 harddrives may suffer just a little bit. But then, two devices on the same cable cannot "talk" to the host at the same time - you should not expect great transfer speed when burning a dvd from the harddrive on the same cable. However, two harddrives on one cable are worse, the possible speed loss is bigger in absolute numbers. > I wonder if fsck will go faster when I start using SATA drives. > Anyone know the stat's on that? > There is not so much difference at least for consumer grade drives (the plattters rotate at the same speed) but density continues to grow only with sata drives - no pata >500G. Drives >1TB will switch over to 4k sector sice instead of the "legacy" 512 Bytes, so there is less overhead. But then, operating systems up to xp lose performance due to compatibility modes of the harddrives. |