From owner-freebsd-hackers Wed Oct 27 9:11:35 1999 Delivered-To: freebsd-hackers@freebsd.org Received: from penelope.skunk.org (penelope.skunk.org [208.133.204.51]) by hub.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 3A0AE15407; Wed, 27 Oct 1999 09:11:28 -0700 (PDT) (envelope-from ben@penelope.skunk.org) Received: from localhost (ben@localhost) by penelope.skunk.org (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id MAA95118; Wed, 27 Oct 1999 12:16:37 -0400 (EDT) Date: Wed, 27 Oct 1999 12:16:37 -0400 (EDT) From: Ben Rosengart To: Chuck Youse Cc: Ilia Chipitsine , 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-hackers@FreeBSD.ORG Precedence: bulk X-Loop: FreeBSD.ORG On Wed, 27 Oct 1999, Chuck Youse wrote: > One of the biggest reasons for the difference: FreeBSD, by default, > performs _synchronous_ metadata updates, and Linux performs asynchronous > metadata updates. > > It's definitely a bit slower, but the payoff is in reliability. I have > seen more than one [production!] Linux machine completely trash its > filesystems because the implementors decided that their "NT-killer" must > have good performance at the expense of serious, production-quality > reliability. Read the post again -- they were using soft updates. -- Ben Rosengart UNIX Systems Engineer, Skunk Group StarMedia Network, Inc. To Unsubscribe: send mail to majordomo@FreeBSD.org with "unsubscribe freebsd-hackers" in the body of the message