From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: from cuda.sgi.com (cuda3.sgi.com [192.48.176.15]) by oss.sgi.com (8.14.3/8.14.3/SuSE Linux 0.8) with ESMTP id nAC0MpE2198263 for ; Wed, 11 Nov 2009 18:22:51 -0600 Received: from postoffice2.aconex.com (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by cuda.sgi.com (Spam Firewall) with ESMTP id 99B2E1860184 for ; Wed, 11 Nov 2009 16:23:09 -0800 (PST) Received: from postoffice2.aconex.com (mail.aconex.com [203.89.202.182]) by cuda.sgi.com with ESMTP id 7kY3G8IeRX4r7QRO for ; Wed, 11 Nov 2009 16:23:09 -0800 (PST) Date: Thu, 12 Nov 2009 11:23:03 +1100 (EST) From: Nathan Scott Message-ID: <1047569616.363721257985383289.JavaMail.root@mail-au.aconex.com> In-Reply-To: <200911120029.21845@zmi.at> Subject: Re: xfs_repair question: "wrong" order of AG checks OK? MIME-Version: 1.0 List-Id: XFS Filesystem from SGI List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: xfs-bounces@oss.sgi.com Errors-To: xfs-bounces@oss.sgi.com To: Michael Monnerie Cc: xfs@oss.sgi.com ----- "Michael Monnerie" wrote: > On Mittwoch 11 November 2009 Nathan Scott wrote: > > Could be xfs_repair running with multiple threads in parallel? > > Would it ever do that? There's no performance advantage in that, as > that operation is disk I/O bound, isn't it? Be worth reading the paper here: http://xfs.org/index.php/XFS_Papers_and_Documentation -> "Fixing XFS Filesystems Faster" cheers. -- Nathan _______________________________________________ xfs mailing list xfs@oss.sgi.com http://oss.sgi.com/mailman/listinfo/xfs