[note email sent to linux-fsdevel, as it is OT for l-k]
Jamie Lokier writes:
> Alan Cox wrote:
> > Its caught errors before that probably avoided people losing data. Its a
> > good sanity check. The "stupid" defaults are two other things
> >
> > o Using 1K blocks on large disks (4K is way faster) and
> > 4K checks way faster too
> >
> > o Not using the "sparse superblock" option on large disks
> > when creating them.
> >
> > Unfortunately I dont think there are any "in place" fixers for those
> > creation time choices.
>
> Sparse superblocks can be turn on/off by the current tune2fs.
> You follow it by a fsck to clean up, then it's done.
> I was hoping they'd speed up the mount but its still takes an age...
>
> Why does 4k blocksize check faster? (I've never tried it). Does it use
> fewer superblocks?
Not only are there 1/4 fewer (superblocks, group descriptors, inode/block
bitmaps) with 4k ext2 filesystems, but also files have fewer blocks,
including single-, double-, and triple-indirect blocks, so much less checking
for a given amount of data.
Cheers, Andreas
--
Andreas Dilger \ "If a man ate a pound of pasta and a pound of antipasto,
\ would they cancel out, leaving him still hungry?"
http://www-mddsp.enel.ucalgary.ca/People/adilger/ -- Dogbert
-
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majordomo@vger.rutgers.edu
Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b29 : Sun Jan 23 2000 - 21:00:17 EST