Re: badblocks -- how much time does it take?

[Ron Johnson <ron.l.johnson@cox.net>]

On 01/12/08 15:29, Alex Samad wrote:
> On Sat, Jan 12, 2008 at 03:11:57PM -0600, Ron Johnson wrote:
> > On 01/12/08 11:40, Towncat wrote:
> > > Hi,
> > >
> > > I did a
> > >
> > > /sbin/badblocks -c 10240 -w -t random -v /dev/sda2
> > Why?  Don't you trust brand new disk drives?
> >
> > > where sda2 is a 320 gb partition. The process has been running for
> > > approx 18 hours and is just over three thirds. Is this really supposed
> > > to be so slow,
> > Yes.
> >
> > >                 or is there something wrong? The machine is a Core Duo
> > > 1,6, 2GB memory.
> > CPU speed helps, I guess, but always the important factor in disk activity 
> > is the disk itself.  A 10K or 15K RPM FC drive connected to a 4GBps HBA 
> > will do the bad block scan *much* faster than an IDE or SATA drive.
>
> thats a bit unfair comparing a 7K to 10K or 15K.

But that's the point.  The bottleneck isn't RAM or CPU, it's the 
disk drive itself.  Faster drive, faster badblocks.


> personal note I don't think the fc has much to do with it (if its only a bad 
> block scan and there is nothing else happening )

Faster transfer rates than IDE/SATA.

--
Ron Johnson, Jr.
Jefferson LA  USA

"I'm not a vegetarian because I love animals, I'm a vegetarian
because I hate vegetables!"
unknown