What's the Damage? Measuring fsck Under XFS and Ext4 On Big Storage

Slashdot is powered by your submissions, so send in your scoop

What's the Damage? Measuring fsck Under XFS and Ext4 On Big Storage 196

Posted by timothy on Friday February 03, 2012 @01:40PM from the disks-groaning-with-shame dept.

An anonymous reader writes "Enterprise Storage Forum's long-awaited Linux file system Fsck testing is finally complete. Find out just how bad the Linux file system scaling problem really is."

This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.

What's the Damage? Measuring fsck Under XFS and Ext4 On Big Storage

Search 196 Comments Log In/Create an Account

Comments Filter:

Breaking News! (Score:2, Funny)

by Anonymous Coward writes: on Friday February 03, 2012 @01:54PM (#38917601)

This just in:
Full filesystem scans take longer as the size of the filesystem increases.
News at 11.

Share
twitter facebook
Damage? (Score:4, Funny)

by eggstasy ( 458692 ) writes: on Friday February 03, 2012 @02:02PM (#38917765) Journal

Honey badger don't give a fsck.

Share
twitter facebook
Re:fsck speed, want safety (Score:5, Funny)

by darkpixel2k ( 623900 ) writes: on Friday February 03, 2012 @02:36PM (#38918453)

when I need to fsck, I just call my girlfriend
Why? Do you not know how to use the command line?

Parent Share
twitter facebook
Re:linux is fail (Score:5, Funny)

by Anonymous Coward writes: on Friday February 03, 2012 @02:38PM (#38918513)

sudo kill yourself
;-)

Parent Share
twitter facebook
Re:fsck speed, want safety (Score:0, Funny)

by Anonymous Coward writes: on Friday February 03, 2012 @02:41PM (#38918543)

when I need to fsck, I just call my girlfriend
Me too.

Parent Share
twitter facebook
Re:linux is fail (Score:4, Funny)

by ifrag ( 984323 ) writes: on Friday February 03, 2012 @03:15PM (#38919069)

I like how you completely ignored Solaris yet still presented the comment as if it was a valid counterargument.
I also like how GP completely ignored Solaris. I just like the fact it is being ignored.

Parent Share
twitter facebook
Re:linux is fail (Score:3, Funny)

by lvxferre ( 2470098 ) writes: on Friday February 03, 2012 @04:40PM (#38920235)

Why would you replace a zero-ed string with another? At least use /dev/random, bro.

Parent Share
twitter facebook
Re:fsck speed, want safety (Score:5, Funny)

by lvxferre ( 2470098 ) writes: on Friday February 03, 2012 @04:42PM (#38920259)

Protip: if 'make love' returns no target, you need to do the job by hand.

Parent Share
twitter facebook
Re:linux is fail (Score:4, Funny)

by Saxophonist ( 937341 ) writes: on Friday February 03, 2012 @05:09PM (#38920575)

No, you're thinking of ReiserFS.

Parent Share
twitter facebook
Re:fsck xfs does something? (Score:1, Funny)

by Vanders ( 110092 ) writes: on Friday February 03, 2012 @08:18PM (#38922649) Homepage

Well thank goodness you don't have a big ego on top of everything else... sheesh.
Hey, I wasn't the one being wrong and calling people dumb.
If you want to actually help
Where did you get the impression I wanted to help? You were just wrong. Get over it.

Parent Share
twitter facebook

There may be more comments in this discussion. Without JavaScript enabled, you might want to turn on Classic Discussion System in your preferences instead.

What's the Damage? Measuring fsck Under XFS and Ext4 On Big Storage 196

What's the Damage? Measuring fsck Under XFS and Ext4 On Big Storage More Login

What's the Damage? Measuring fsck Under XFS and Ext4 On Big Storage

Breaking News! (Score:2, Funny)

Damage? (Score:4, Funny)

Re:fsck speed, want safety (Score:5, Funny)

Re:linux is fail (Score:5, Funny)

Re:fsck speed, want safety (Score:0, Funny)

Re:linux is fail (Score:4, Funny)

Re:linux is fail (Score:3, Funny)

Re:fsck speed, want safety (Score:5, Funny)

Re:linux is fail (Score:4, Funny)

Re:fsck xfs does something? (Score:1, Funny)

Related Links Top of the: day, week, month.

Slashdot Top Deals

Slashdot