+Yes, fix and check are typically slower than sync and scrub in SnapRAID. +
++The main reason is how each command accesses and processes the disks: +
++sync and scrub use a multithreaded implementation, with one thread per data disk (plus handling for parity). +This allows SnapRAID to read from multiple disks in parallel and squeeze out the maximum possible performance from your array. +
++Something similar could be done for fix and check, but SnapRAID deliberately takes a more conservative approach here. +When you run fix, you're usually in a recovery situation (bad blocks, missing data, failed disk, silent corruption detected during scrub/sync, etc.). +
++Pushing the system (and potentially marginal/failing drives) to maximum I/O limits during an active repair isn't ideal. +It could increase the risk of additional timeouts, errors, or stressing hardware that's already showing issues. +Reliability and safe recovery take priority over raw speed. +
++That said, there is still some parallelism in fix and check anyway: SnapRAID provides the operating system with the necessary hints (like read-ahead requests) to allow efficient prefetching of disk data, helping the OS optimize sequential reads where possible. +
++In short: sync and scrub are optimized for speed while staying safe. +fix and check are intentionally more cautious to protect your data when it matters most. +
+