On Thu, Mar 31, 2011 at 03:15:59PM +0100, Stuart Henderson wrote: > On 2011/03/31 08:29, Marco Peereboom wrote: > > On Thu, Mar 31, 2011 at 09:13:41AM +0000, Stuart Henderson wrote: > > > On 2011-03-31, Otto Moerbeek <[email protected]> wrote: > > > > On Wed, Mar 30, 2011 at 03:45:02PM -0500, Amit Kulkarni wrote: > > > >> In fsck_ffs's pass1.c it just takes forever for large sized partitions > > > >> and also if you have very high number of files stored on that > > > >> partition (used inodes count goes high). > > > > > > If you really have a lot of used inodes, skipping the unused ones > > > isn't going to help :-) > > > > > > You could always build your large-sized filesystems with a larger > > > value of bytes-per-inode. newfs -i 32768 or 65536 is good for common > > > filesystem use patterns with larger partitions (for specialist uses > > > e.g. storing backups as huge single files it might be appropriate > > > to go even higher). > > > > So this helps a lot to reduce fsck however if you play a lot with the > > "tuning" parameters the only thing you tune is less speed. I played > > quite a bit with the parameters and the results were always worse than > > the defaults. > > Typical fsck times on my large partitions holding e.g. music or video > go down from hours to minutes. This is enough of a win that I really > don't care whether it changes anything at runtime.
I think I didn't make my point correctly. The parameters you suggested work great. Pretty much all the other ones do not.
