He didn't get it right; he didn't make predictions about the future
ad neither did I. He said that ext2 fsck right *now* would take 3
hours for a 100GB filesystem. I replied saying that I'd benchmarked
it at 13 minutes for a 75% full 43GB filesystem (and I now have 4 such
filesystems attached to our mail server cluster). Within a year, I
expect to see journalling support for ext2. Within that year, I don't
expect any system crashes and, if there is a crash, I find 13 minutes
to be an acceptable fsck time given the other advantages of the Linux
mail cluster.
My point is that fsck is adequate right *now* for large file systems
in many situations. People shouldn't avoid rolling out systems with
large ext2 filesystems *now* because by the time disk sizes grow large
enough to make fsck infeasible, ext2 (or XFS or reiserfs or whatever)
will have journalling support. ext2 fsck speed is poor but it is
adequate. People who read his message and gave credence to his figure
of 3 hours (who may well have taken it is an "accepted", "proved"
data point) are are being done a disservice.
--Malcolm
-- Malcolm Beattie <mbeattie@sable.ox.ac.uk> Unix Systems Programmer Oxford University Computing Services- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in the body of a message to majordomo@vger.rutgers.edu Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/