Skip site navigation (1)Skip section navigation (2)
Date:      Wed, 27 Oct 1999 12:16:37 -0400 (EDT)
From:      Ben Rosengart <ben@skunk.org>
To:        Chuck Youse <cyouse@paradox.nexuslabs.com>
Cc:        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.4.10.9910271216060.94542-100000@penelope.skunk.org>
In-Reply-To: <Pine.BSF.4.10.9910271158590.1849-100000@paradox.nexuslabs.com>

next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
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.

--
 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.4.10.9910271216060.94542-100000>