[CentOS] faster fsck ?

Les Mikesell lesmikesell at gmail.com
Fri Oct 29 12:47:44 UTC 2010

On 10/29/10 7:31 AM, Peter Kjellström wrote:
> On Friday 29 October 2010 11:42:38 przemolicc at poczta.fm wrote:
>> Hi,
>> we have CentOS ftp server (vsftpd) which has a lot of users who are writing
>> and reading a lot of small files from/into its own accounts (and other
>> servers - using samba client - are reading these files and putting them
>> into outside database).
>> Since this server is under heavy load its availability is important.
>> > From time to time we "crash" this server (don't ask why ...) but then fsck
>>> is running for over 20-30 minuts.
>> The question is: is there any other _stable_ filesystem (xfs ?, jfs ?)
>> which we can use instead of ext3 which is (quite) immune to crashes and
>> whose fsck is "faster" (by design) then in ext3 ?
> The idea with ext3/ext4 is that you don't have to run a full fsck after a
> system crash (only a fully automated journal replay).
> XFS uses the same idea (no fsck only journal replay). But if you really want
> to fsck an xfs filesystem then that too will take a lot of time.

The question is, are the fsck's happening because the journal is corrupted, 
because something is wrong with it, or because a journal isn't configured or the 
'time to check' has expired.  In the latter case you can adjust with tune2fs.

   Les Mikesell
    lesmikesell at gmail.com

More information about the CentOS mailing list