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>