On Thu, Mar 27, 2008 at 05:06:53PM +0100, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
> On Thu, 27 Mar 2008, Stephen John Smoogen wrote:
.
.
.
> Hmm, we successfully fsck'd ext3 filesystems 1.4 TB in size frequently a
> couple of years ago, under 2.4 (back then, it was SuSE 8.2 + a vanilla
> kernel). This took no more than a few hours (maybe 2,3, or 4). It was
> hardware RAID, not too reliable (hence "frequently"), and not too fast (<
> 100 MB/s). A contemporary linux server with software RAID should complete
> an fsck *much* faster, or something is wrong.
Hi, Stephan. Yea, I think I must be doing something wrong here, but I
haven't been able to figure out what it is.
> And I still wonder why fsck at at all just because a broken disk was
> replaced in a redundant array?
The system seems to insist on it. Again, there may be some cockpit
error involved.
Thanks.
- Mike
--
Michael Hannon mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Dept. of Physics 530.752.4966
University of California 530.752.4717 FAX
Davis, CA 95616-8677
