Hi. I'm using Debian. Is this a Redhat-only list, or is it only hosted by RedHat? I recently changed my filing systems over to ext3, but deliberately left the forced boot check parameters alone so my system checks after 20 mounts. I notice that the fsck takes a good ten times longer than under ext2, to perform the cleanly unmounted check. (On the occasion where I did unmount dirtily, the journals played back and things came up swiftly - huzzah.) I looked back through the last several months in these archives, but could only find someone's fsck hanging - mine just takes a long time, and the spinner sticks here and there. I also notice that I can see .journal files, despite /proc/mounts showing ext3 for all my disc-based filing systems. I seem to be using e2fsck 1.27 (8-Mar-2002) Linux vermillion 2.4.16-k6 #1 Wed Nov 28 10:34:08 EST 2001 i586 unknown Is this a known problem? Thanks in advance, Tim Baverstock -- http://www.sable.demon.co.uk
On Mar 04, 2003 00:12 +0000, Tim Baverstock wrote:> I'm using Debian. Is this a Redhat-only list, or is it only hosted by RedHat?It is open to all ext3 users.> I notice that the fsck takes a good ten times longer than under ext2, to > perform the cleanly unmounted check. (On the occasion where I did unmount > dirtily, the journals played back and things came up swiftly - huzzah.)It is almost impossible that this is the case and/or the cause of the slowdown (although of course you must be having _some_ problem, and finding the cause of it is of course welcome). Aside from doing the journal recovery (which should only take a few seconds), e2fsck doesn't do anything differently for ext2 and ext3. This is because the on-disk layout of the two filesystems is identical aside from ext3 having an extra inode for the journal. If you are really curious, you could always try timing "e2fsck -f <dev>", then removing the journal via "tune2fs -O ^has_journal" and re-running "e2fsck -f <dev>" to see if it makes a difference. Don't forget to re-enable journaling with "tune2fs -O has_journal" when finished.> I also notice that I can see .journal files, despite /proc/mounts showing > ext3 for all my disc-based filing systems.I believe that if you update to a newer e2fsprogs, it will "hide" your .journal files if you run e2fsck on them while unmounted. This means that the .journal files will be gone on all except the root filesystem. Cheers, Andreas -- Andreas Dilger http://sourceforge.net/projects/ext2resize/ http://www-mddsp.enel.ucalgary.ca/People/adilger/
Hi, On Tue, 2003-03-04 at 00:12, Tim Baverstock wrote:> I'm using Debian. Is this a Redhat-only list, or is it only hosted by RedHat?The latter -- all ext3 users are welcome here!> I notice that the fsck takes a good ten times longer than under ext2, to > perform the cleanly unmounted check. (On the occasion where I did unmount > dirtily, the journals played back and things came up swiftly - huzzah.)The only thing I can think of is that you may have started using non-DMA access to the disk. Did you rebuild your kernel when you went to ext3? It's possible that the new kernel build is not driving the disks with DMA. "hdparm" will tell you if the disk is using DMA or not. Cheers, Stephen> > I looked back through the last several months in these archives, but could > only find someone's fsck hanging - mine just takes a long time, and the > spinner sticks here and there. > > I also notice that I can see .journal files, despite /proc/mounts showing > ext3 for all my disc-based filing systems. > > I seem to be using e2fsck 1.27 (8-Mar-2002) > > Linux vermillion 2.4.16-k6 #1 Wed Nov 28 10:34:08 EST 2001 i586 unknown > > Is this a known problem? > > Thanks in advance, > > Tim Baverstock > > -- > http://www.sable.demon.co.uk > > > > _______________________________________________ > Ext3-users mailing list > Ext3-users@redhat.com > https://listman.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/ext3-users