From owner-freebsd-questions Wed Oct 27 12:28: 9 1999 Delivered-To: freebsd-questions@freebsd.org Received: from acl.lanl.gov (acl.lanl.gov [128.165.147.1]) by hub.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id F37ED14A0D; Wed, 27 Oct 1999 12:28:02 -0700 (PDT) (envelope-from rminnich@lanl.gov) Received: from localhost (rminnich@localhost) by acl.lanl.gov (8.8.8/8.8.5) with ESMTP id NAA685938; Wed, 27 Oct 1999 13:27:50 -0600 (MDT) X-Authentication-Warning: acl.lanl.gov: rminnich owned process doing -bs Date: Wed, 27 Oct 1999 13:27:50 -0600 From: "Ronald G. Minnich" To: Ilia Chipitsine Cc: Chuck Youse , 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 On Wed, 27 Oct 1999, Ilia Chipitsine wrote: > as far as I remember ext2 has some "counter". I used to use Linux and > it performed 'fsck' from time to time (even if fs was clearly unmounted). > that is a very good thing to have. And it's a good thing because ... well, maybe because it's not that reliable an FS. I actually can't see it as a good thing if you have a file system that doesn't need it. > I do not recall that FreeBSD did such thing. It might not have needed to. It never has in five years for me. The numbers are from my old job at sarnoff, see my web page ... for a while in 1997-99 we had "things go wrong" about once a month. Over the space of 18 months as "things went wrong" we found ourselves having to fix at least one Linux box each time. On average it was four. > I DID lose FFS even it was mounted "sync", not async. I guess I was lucky :-) anyway, I'll drop this thread, just trying to fill in some info. ron To Unsubscribe: send mail to majordomo@FreeBSD.org with "unsubscribe freebsd-questions" in the body of the message