SCIENTIFIC-LINUX-USERS Archives

July 2012

SCIENTIFIC-LINUX-USERS@LISTSERV.FNAL.GOV

Options: Use Monospaced Font
Show Text Part by Default
Show All Mail Headers

Message: [<< First] [< Prev] [Next >] [Last >>]
Topic: [<< First] [< Prev] [Next >] [Last >>]
Author: [<< First] [< Prev] [Next >] [Last >>]

Print Reply
Subject:
From:
Reply To:
Date:
Thu, 19 Jul 2012 16:45:07 -0700
Content-Type:
text/plain
Parts/Attachments:
text/plain (22 lines)
On 2012/07/19 16:33, Konstantin Olchanski wrote:
> On Fri, Jul 20, 2012 at 01:17:47AM +0200, David Sommerseth wrote:
>>
>> ... even an automatic fsck shouldn't cause much extra delay next time you boot.
>>
>
>
> With full respect, "extra delay" being a subjective term, etc,
> but do you have any idea how long it takes to fsck a 20TB filesystem 99% full
> with a mixture of small and big files? (Hint: it takes more than 30 seconds).
>
> But I guess it is the modern view of things: "if it is quick on my laptop
> it would not cause much extra delay for anybody else". No need to put numbers on it
> or think about scaling (at least fsck is mostly O(n) in disk size).

What happens if you periodically run fsck on the filesystems with the -n
option so no repairs are attempted? If that is done suitably niced into
the background an email or other message could be sent to "root" and inform
the system administrator that there is a problem that needs fixing.

{^_^}

ATOM RSS1 RSS2