Skip site navigation (1)Skip section navigation (2)
Date:      Tue, 12 Nov 1996 10:42:54 +0200 (EET)
From:      Andrew Stesin <stesin@gu.net>
To:        Michael Smith <msmith@atrad.adelaide.edu.au>
Cc:        jgreco@brasil.moneng.mei.com, freebsd-current@freebsd.org
Subject:   Re: ufs is too slow?
Message-ID:  <Pine.BSI.3.95.961112103004.19510C-100000@creator.gu.kiev.ua>
In-Reply-To: <199611120007.KAA12318@genesis.atrad.adelaide.edu.au>

next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
Hello people,

just some (presumably bogus ;) comments of mine...

> > Maybe we can all talk about it a little and figure out
> > how hard it would be to get going. If we were running
> > a kick-ass big/fast file system, FreeBSD would capture
> > some more of the Int(er|tra)+Net market. In addition
> > to which, the infamous 'make world' time would surely
> > benefit.
> 
> I doubt that a working lfs would actually offer much, if any, in the
> way of performance in anything other than the applications that it
> handles well.  As a consequence of the data acquisition stuff that we
> do, we often end up with directories with literally thousands of
> fairly large files in them; a BSD ffs filesystem mounted async,noatime
> is _significantly_ faster at moving/copying/deleting this sort of
> stuff than any of the other (Solaris, OSF, NTFS, HPFS, FAT)
> filesystems that we've ever put data on.

	If only some filesystem and kernel Guru considered writing
	FFS-B -- FFS with B-tree used for directory structures, no
	other modifications; _that_ would probably be the best bet for
	FS with a BIG (3000+ files per dir) directories?

	Or another (plain bogus ;) approach for NewsFS: take a raw
	partition, and create a BerkeleyDB, "One Big B-tree" over
	it... put everything there, including article bodies, and
	all indices nessesary, set a size of memory-pool buffer inside
	innd as appropriate -- and what will happen?  Just a plain big
	multi-table database, should be pretty simple and fast.

> One of the most notable performance improvements can actually be had
> by using SCSI disks and controllers that support tagged queueing;
> don't ever make the mistake of benchmarking an IDE based disk
> subsystem against anything else.

	Anyway, good algorithms will give you some win even on
	cheap and crappy HW.  As for me, I won't be able to afford
	anything but cheap IDE for my home PC for a long time yet. :)
	This doesn't mean of course that I will never want to run some
	small, 1Gb or even smaller, news spool on it. ;)

--
		Best,
			Andrew Stesin

		nic-hdl: ST73-RIPE




Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?Pine.BSI.3.95.961112103004.19510C-100000>