Re: [HACKERS] Performance while loading data and indexing

On Thu, 2002-09-26 at 17:47, Bruce Momjian wrote:
> Rod Taylor wrote:
> > > Yes, before UFS had soft updates, the synchronous nature of UFS made it
> > > slower than ext2, but now with soft updates, that performance difference
> > > is gone so you have two files systems, ext2 and ufs, similar peformance,
> > > but one is crash-safe and the other is not.
> >
> > Note entirely true. ufs is both crash-safe and quick-rebootable. You
> > do need to fsck at some point, but not prior to mounting it. Any
> > corrupt blocks are empty, and are easy to avoid.
>
> I am assuming you need to mount the drive as part of the reboot. Of
> course you can boot fast with any file system if you don't have to mount
> it. :-)

Sorry, poor explanation.

Background fsck (when implemented) would operate on a currently mounted
(and active) file system. The only reason fsck is required prior to
reboot now is because no-one had done the work.

http://www.freebsd.org/cgi/man.cgi?query=fsck&sektion=8&manpath=FreeBSD+5.0-current

See the first paragraph of the above.
--
Rod Taylor