From owner-freebsd-questions Wed Oct 27 9:33:55 1999 Delivered-To: freebsd-questions@freebsd.org Received: from calis.blacksun.org (Calis.blacksun.org [168.100.186.40]) by hub.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id EF6161547D; Wed, 27 Oct 1999 09:33:49 -0700 (PDT) (envelope-from don@calis.blacksun.org) Received: from localhost (don@localhost) by calis.blacksun.org (8.9.3/8.9.2) with ESMTP id MAA35323; Wed, 27 Oct 1999 12:35:17 -0400 (EDT) (envelope-from don@calis.blacksun.org) Date: Wed, 27 Oct 1999 12:35:17 -0400 (EDT) From: Don To: Ben Rosengart Cc: Chuck Youse , Ilia Chipitsine , questions@FreeBSD.ORG, hackers@FreeBSD.ORG Subject: Re: why FFS is THAT slower than EXT2 ? In-Reply-To: Message-ID: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII Sender: owner-freebsd-questions@FreeBSD.ORG Precedence: bulk X-Loop: FreeBSD.ORG There is actually a discussion beginning on freebsd-fs about the possibilty to starting a journaled file system project. Perhaps the speed issues (as well as the ACL's issues) could be discussed there? -don 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. To Unsubscribe: send mail to majordomo@FreeBSD.org with "unsubscribe freebsd-questions" in the body of the message