Skip site navigation (1)Skip section navigation (2)
Date:      Wed, 27 Oct 1999 12:44:42 -0400 (EDT)
From:      Ben Rosengart <ben@skunk.org>
To:        Chuck Robey <chuckr@picnic.mat.net>
Cc:        Chuck Youse <cyouse@paradox.nexuslabs.com>, Ilia Chipitsine <ilia@cgilh.chel.su>, questions@FreeBSD.ORG, hackers@FreeBSD.ORG
Subject:   Re: why FFS is THAT slower than EXT2 ?
Message-ID:  <Pine.BSF.4.10.9910271242170.94542-100000@penelope.skunk.org>
In-Reply-To: <Pine.BSF.4.10.9910271229520.29073-100000@picnic.mat.net>

next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
On Wed, 27 Oct 1999, Chuck Robey wrote:

> On Wed, 27 Oct 1999, Ben Rosengart wrote:
> 
> > On Wed, 27 Oct 1999, Chuck Youse wrote:
> > 
> > > One of the biggest reasons for the difference:  FreeBSD, by default,
> > > performs _synchronous_ metadata updates, and Linux performs asynchronous
> > > metadata updates.  
> > > 
> > > It's definitely a bit slower, but the payoff is in reliability.  I have
> > > seen more than one [production!] Linux machine completely trash its
> > > filesystems because the implementors decided that their "NT-killer" must
> > > have good performance at the expense of serious, production-quality
> > > reliability.
> > 
> > Read the post again -- they were using soft updates.
> 
> Why is that important?  Soft updates is still far better than an async
> filesystem.  Have you lost files in panics?  I haven't.

What panics?  I've been running -stable and it's been living up to the
name.

I was pointing out to Chuck Youse that BSD metadata writes are also
(mostly) asynchronous now, so if FFS is truly slower than ext2fs, there
must be some other reason.

--
 Ben Rosengart

UNIX Systems Engineer, Skunk Group
StarMedia Network, Inc.



To Unsubscribe: send mail to majordomo@FreeBSD.org
with "unsubscribe freebsd-questions" in the body of the message




Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?Pine.BSF.4.10.9910271242170.94542-100000>