Date: Mon, 21 May 2001 20:13:16 -0700 (PDT) From: Gordon Tetlow <gordont@bluemtn.net> To: Jordan Hubbard <jkh@osd.bsdi.com> Cc: <ccf@master.ndi.net>, <freebsd-hackers@FreeBSD.ORG> Subject: Re: technical comparison Message-ID: <Pine.BSF.4.33.0105212009460.76720-100000@sdmail0.sd.bmarts.com> In-Reply-To: <20010521153705K.jkh@osd.bsdi.com>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
On Mon, 21 May 2001, Jordan Hubbard wrote: > > c) A filesystem that will be fast in light of tens of thousands of > > files in a single directory (maybe even hundreds of thousands) > > I think we can more than hold our own with UFS + soft updates. This > is another area where you need to get hard numbers from the Linux > folks. I think your assumption that "Linux handles this effectively" > is flawed and I'd like to see hard numbers which prove otherwise; > you should demand no less. Also point out the reliability factor here which is a bit harder to point to a magic number and "See, we *are* better!" ext2 runs async by default which can lead to nasty filesystem corruption in the event of a power loss. With softupdates, the filesystem metadata will always be in sync and uncorrupted (barring media failure of course). -gordon To Unsubscribe: send mail to majordomo@FreeBSD.org with "unsubscribe freebsd-hackers" 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.4.33.0105212009460.76720-100000>