From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S1751049AbWCVWt1 (ORCPT ); Wed, 22 Mar 2006 17:49:27 -0500 Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org id S1751413AbWCVWt1 (ORCPT ); Wed, 22 Mar 2006 17:49:27 -0500 Received: from fmr19.intel.com ([134.134.136.18]:15286 "EHLO orsfmr004.jf.intel.com") by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1751049AbWCVWtZ (ORCPT ); Wed, 22 Mar 2006 17:49:25 -0500 Date: Wed, 22 Mar 2006 14:48:45 -0800 From: Valerie Henson To: Badari Pulavarty Cc: lkml , ext2-devel , Arjan van de Ven , "Theodore Ts'o" , Zach Brown Subject: Re: [Ext2-devel] [RFC] [PATCH] Reducing average ext2 fsck time through fs-wide dirty bit] Message-ID: <20060322224844.GU12571@goober> References: <20060322011034.GP12571@goober> <1143054558.6086.61.camel@dyn9047017100.beaverton.ibm.com> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <1143054558.6086.61.camel@dyn9047017100.beaverton.ibm.com> User-Agent: Mutt/1.5.9i Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org On Wed, Mar 22, 2006 at 11:09:18AM -0800, Badari Pulavarty wrote: > On Tue, 2006-03-21 at 17:10 -0800, Valerie Henson wrote: > > Hi all, > > > > I am working on reducing the average time spent on fscking ext2 file > > systems. My initial take on the problem is to avoid fscking when the > > Just curious, why are you teaching ext2 same tricks that are in ext3 ? > Is there a reason behind improving ext2 ? Are there any benefits > of not using ext3 instead ? ext2 is simpler and faster than ext3 in many cases. This is sort of cheating; ext2 is simpler and faster because it makes no effort to maintain on-disk consistency and can skip annoying things like, oh, reserving space in the journal. I am looking for ways to make ext2 cheat even more. -VAL