From owner-freebsd-fs@FreeBSD.ORG Fri Sep 21 16:30:59 2007 Return-Path: Delivered-To: freebsd-fs@freebsd.org Received: from mx1.freebsd.org (mx1.freebsd.org [IPv6:2001:4f8:fff6::34]) by hub.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 1C47516A421; Fri, 21 Sep 2007 16:30:59 +0000 (UTC) (envelope-from anderson@freebsd.org) Received: from ns.trinitel.com (186.161.36.72.static.reverse.ltdomains.com [72.36.161.186]) by mx1.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id DF57F13C468; Fri, 21 Sep 2007 16:30:58 +0000 (UTC) (envelope-from anderson@freebsd.org) Received: from proton.storspeed.com (209-163-168-124.static.twtelecom.net [209.163.168.124]) (authenticated bits=0) by ns.trinitel.com (8.14.1/8.14.1) with ESMTP id l8LGUrDH082328; Fri, 21 Sep 2007 11:30:55 -0500 (CDT) (envelope-from anderson@freebsd.org) Message-ID: <46F3F1BD.3060306@freebsd.org> Date: Fri, 21 Sep 2007 11:30:53 -0500 From: Eric Anderson User-Agent: Thunderbird 2.0.0.6 (Macintosh/20070728) MIME-Version: 1.0 To: Bruce Evans References: <46F3A64C.4090507@fluffles.net> <46F3B4B0.40606@freebsd.org> <20070922021201.C43374@delplex.bde.org> In-Reply-To: <20070922021201.C43374@delplex.bde.org> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.9 required=5.0 tests=AWL,BAYES_00 autolearn=ham version=3.1.8 X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 3.1.8 (2007-02-13) on ns.trinitel.com Cc: freebsd-fs@freebsd.org, Fluffles , Ivan Voras Subject: Re: Writing contigiously to UFS2? X-BeenThere: freebsd-fs@freebsd.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.5 Precedence: list List-Id: Filesystems List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Fri, 21 Sep 2007 16:30:59 -0000 Bruce Evans wrote: > On Fri, 21 Sep 2007, Eric Anderson wrote: > >> I recommend trying msdos fs. On recent -CURRENT, it should perform >> fairly well (akin to UFS2 I think), and if I recall correctly, has a >> more contiguous block layout. > > It can give perfect contiguity for data blocks, but has serious slowness > for > non-sequential access to large files, and anyway "large" for msdosfs is > only 4GB. Oops - forgot about the 4GB limit. I was also assuming that the random read in a big file problem wasn't an issue due to the configuration noted by the original poster.. but maybe that's a bad assumption. Eric