From owner-freebsd-hackers  Mon Jan 27 00:09:26 1997
Return-Path: <owner-hackers>
Received: (from root@localhost)
          by freefall.freebsd.org (8.8.5/8.8.5) id AAA25238
          for hackers-outgoing; Mon, 27 Jan 1997 00:09:26 -0800 (PST)
Received: from parkplace.cet.co.jp (parkplace.cet.co.jp [202.32.64.1])
          by freefall.freebsd.org (8.8.5/8.8.5) with ESMTP id AAA25233
          for <freebsd-hackers@freebsd.org>; Mon, 27 Jan 1997 00:09:22 -0800 (PST)
Received: from localhost (michaelh@localhost) by parkplace.cet.co.jp (8.8.3/CET-v2.1) with SMTP id IAA28611; Mon, 27 Jan 1997 08:08:59 GMT
Date: Mon, 27 Jan 1997 17:08:59 +0900 (JST)
From: Michael Hancock <michaelh@cet.co.jp>
To: Bruce Evans <bde@zeta.org.au>
cc: dicen@hooked.net, freebsd-hackers@freebsd.org
Subject: Re: What is the default for async in /etc/fstab?
In-Reply-To: <199701270553.QAA25341@godzilla.zeta.org.au>
Message-ID: <Pine.SV4.3.95.970127170621.27960B-100000@parkplace.cet.co.jp>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII
Sender: owner-hackers@freebsd.org
X-Loop: FreeBSD.org
Precedence: bulk

On Mon, 27 Jan 1997, Bruce Evans wrote:

> In my tests, ext2fs is fastest for huge sequential i/o's when the block
> sizes are closer (8K vs 4K), but there was only a small difference (less
> than 10%) between the best and worst cases (best: ext2fs under FreeBSD,
> next: ext2fs under Linux, worst: ext2fs under Linux) except for rewrite,

next: and worst: are the same here.  ;-)