Return-Path: Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S932344AbWCVTHe (ORCPT ); Wed, 22 Mar 2006 14:07:34 -0500 Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org id S932355AbWCVTHe (ORCPT ); Wed, 22 Mar 2006 14:07:34 -0500 Received: from wproxy.gmail.com ([64.233.184.203]:9515 "EHLO wproxy.gmail.com") by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S932344AbWCVTHd (ORCPT ); Wed, 22 Mar 2006 14:07:33 -0500 DomainKey-Signature: a=rsa-sha1; q=dns; c=nofws; s=beta; d=gmail.com; h=received:subject:from:to:cc:in-reply-to:references:content-type:date:message-id:mime-version:x-mailer:content-transfer-encoding; b=hdN74NsNe36cXhq6j1xhzenfEYGHWsBGb7WKGbyKea2egnH7zAxCc/46aBC95VipWR3QCy+yupUJkevQymMYTpUZgzQJc5g3L/AC0IxJlJYVYBILbYElyI/yMnbMZgUo1XQSU83C4MyLzwQkSzf1sSNBJsytJRIYzU0lCSPqVWo= Subject: Re: [Ext2-devel] [RFC] [PATCH] Reducing average ext2 fsck time through fs-wide dirty bit] From: Badari Pulavarty To: Valerie Henson Cc: lkml , ext2-devel , Arjan van de Ven , "Theodore Ts'o" , Zach Brown In-Reply-To: <20060322011034.GP12571@goober> References: <20060322011034.GP12571@goober> Content-Type: text/plain Date: Wed, 22 Mar 2006 11:09:18 -0800 Message-Id: <1143054558.6086.61.camel@dyn9047017100.beaverton.ibm.com> Mime-Version: 1.0 X-Mailer: Evolution 2.0.4 (2.0.4-4) Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org Content-Length: 1187 Lines: 27 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 > file system is not being modified. If we're not actively modifying > the file system when we crash, it seems intuitive that we could avoid > fsck on next mount. The obvious way to implement this is to add a > clean/dirty bit to the superblock, check every so often to see if the > file system is not being written, sync out all outstanding writes, and > mark the file system clean. On boot, fsck should check for the clean > bit and mark the file system as valid, thereby avoiding a full fsck. > I call this the fs-wide dirty bit solution. .. 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 ? Thanks, Badari - To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in the body of a message to majordomo@vger.kernel.org More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/