From owner-freebsd-questions Wed Oct 27 14:22:49 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 185C614E0E; Wed, 27 Oct 1999 14:22:40 -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 RAA35700; Wed, 27 Oct 1999 17:24:16 -0400 (EDT) (envelope-from don@calis.blacksun.org) Date: Wed, 27 Oct 1999 17:24:16 -0400 (EDT) From: Don To: "Ronald G. Minnich" Cc: Ilia Chipitsine , 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 > > 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. linux performed a fsck on every 16th boot afaik. This may have been changed but that is how often it occurred when I used linux. This had more to do with the file system becoming fragmented than with it becoming inconsistent. (dont quote me on that.) -don To Unsubscribe: send mail to majordomo@FreeBSD.org with "unsubscribe freebsd-questions" in the body of the message