Re: long fsck time

From: Nguyen Thai Ngoc Duy <pclouds@gmail.com>
Date: Nov 3, 2011, 01:36 UTC
Message-ID: <CACsJy8DN74QWYA_NzBCGgp_VdQpV5PqGMgAFUKYbOecVqw6HYQ@mail.gmail.com>
In-Reply-To: <20111102213332.GA14108@sigill.intra.peff.net>

2011/11/3 Jeff King <peff@peff.net>:

Show 19 quoted lines

> On Wed, Nov 02, 2011 at 07:10:26PM +0700, Nguyen Thai Ngoc Duy wrote:
>
>> On Wed, Nov 2, 2011 at 7:06 PM, Nguyen Thai Ngoc Duy <pclouds@gmail.com> wrote:
>> > On git.git
>> >
>> > $ /usr/bin/time git fsck
>> > 333.25user 4.28system 5:37.59elapsed 99%CPU (0avgtext+0avgdata
>> > 420080maxresident)k
>> > 0inputs+0outputs (0major+726560minor)pagefaults 0swaps
>> >
>> > That's really long time, perhaps we should print progress so users
>> > know it's still running?
>>
>> Ahh.. --verbose. Sorry for the noise. Still good to show the number of
>> checked objects though.
>
> fsck --verbose is _really_ verbose. It could probably stand to have some
> progress meters sprinkled throughout. The patch below produces this on
> my git.git repo:

Yes, I wanted something like this.

Show 10 quoted lines

>  $ git fsck
>  Checking object directories: 100% (256/256), done.
>  Verifying packs: 100% (7/7), done.
>  Checking objects (pack 1/7): 100% (241/241), done.
>  Checking objects (pack 2/7): 100% (176/176), done.
>  Checking objects (pack 3/7): 100% (312/312), done.
>  Checking objects (pack 4/7): 100% (252/252), done.
>  Checking objects (pack 5/7): 100% (353/353), done.
>  Checking objects (pack 6/7): 100% (375/375), done.
>  Checking objects (pack 7/7): 100% (171079/171079), done.

Would be better if we only output one "Checking objects" line.

> which gives reasonably smooth progress. The longest hang is that
> "Verifying pack" 7 is slow (I believe it's doing a sha1 over the whole
> thing). If you really wanted to get fancy, you could probably do a
> throughput meter as we sha1 the whole contents.

I'll give it a try.

> Patch is below. It would need --{no-,}progress support on the command
> line, and to check isatty(2) before it would be acceptable.

Agreed on isatty(), though I think this output should be default (with maybe --quiet to silence it on tty). Other messages may be prepended with severity to indicate they are not progress output.

-- 
Duy