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 [email protected]
More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
[Index of Archives]
[Kernel Newbies]
[Netfilter]
[Bugtraq]
[Photo]
[Stuff]
[Gimp]
[Yosemite News]
[MIPS Linux]
[ARM Linux]
[Linux Security]
[Linux RAID]
[Video 4 Linux]
[Linux for the blind]
[Linux Resources]
