From owner-freebsd-questions Wed Oct 27 11:47:54 1999 Delivered-To: freebsd-questions@freebsd.org Received: from fw.wintelcom.net (ns1.wintelcom.net [209.1.153.20]) by hub.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 46F9F14CBF for ; Wed, 27 Oct 1999 11:47:51 -0700 (PDT) (envelope-from bright@wintelcom.net) Received: from localhost (bright@localhost) by fw.wintelcom.net (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id MAA14387; Wed, 27 Oct 1999 12:10:10 -0700 (PDT) Date: Wed, 27 Oct 1999 12:10:10 -0700 (PDT) From: Alfred Perlstein To: Ilia Chipitsine Cc: questions@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 On Wed, 27 Oct 1999, Ilia Chipitsine wrote: > -----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- > > Well, guys, listen :-) > > I and my friends mentioned that "FreeBSD + ffs" is often slower > (THAT slower) than "Linux + ext2" for number of tasks: > rm, find, tar ... for IDE & SCSI disks. > > I didn't try things like "FreeBSD + ext2" or "Linux + ffs". > > I attached here results of the test I performed. For test I "gunzip"ped > FreeBSD ports collection, in attachment You can find "scripted" output of > "# time sh install.sh" for both systems. Also there are "dmesg" outputs. > > machine was THE SAME: read "dmesg", > > FreeBSD-3.3 + softupdates + "# tunefs -o time" + "flags 0xb0ffb0ff" > (kernel was compiled with "-O2") > Linux - RedHat-6.0 with out_of_box_kernel, just > "# hdparm -d 1 -c 3 -m 16 /dev/hda", read "hdparm" output... > > even as non-native English speaker I know few other other words which > begin with "f" :-) > is "fast" the propriate one for "ffs" ? I think the sarcasm should be held off until you understand the underlying system which you obviously do not. How much ram is in each box? If the working set fits entirely into RAM linux will perform faster than FreeBSD because FreeBSD uses a an aggressive write-behind mechanism whereas linux will wait until it's just about out of buffers before forcing data to disk. Work is in progress to make this an adaptive algorithm. You should note that for the most case when linux runs out of memory the 'scrambling' it does to recover kills performance terribly. You should also note that Linux is completely async, meaning your files just are not consistant. Finally, either a question belongs on questions, -or- hackers not both, please don't cross post. -Alfred To Unsubscribe: send mail to majordomo@FreeBSD.org with "unsubscribe freebsd-questions" in the body of the message