From owner-freebsd-hackers Wed Oct 27 9:51:22 1999 Delivered-To: freebsd-hackers@freebsd.org Received: from mail.enteract.com (mail.enteract.com [207.229.143.33]) by hub.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 7B87A14EAD; Wed, 27 Oct 1999 09:51:17 -0700 (PDT) (envelope-from dscheidt@enteract.com) Received: from shell-1.enteract.com (dscheidt@shell-1.enteract.com [207.229.143.40]) by mail.enteract.com (8.9.3/8.9.3) with SMTP id LAA89564; Wed, 27 Oct 1999 11:50:56 -0500 (CDT) (envelope-from dscheidt@enteract.com) Date: Wed, 27 Oct 1999 11:50:56 -0500 (CDT) From: David Scheidt To: Chuck Robey Cc: Ben Rosengart , Chuck Youse , 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 Robey wrote: > > > > Read the post again -- they were using soft updates. > > Why is that important? Soft updates is still far better than an async > filesystem. Have you lost files in panics? I haven't. > Soft updates should get you most of the speed that async updates do. I have lost cylinder groups in panics on systems with soft-updates. (I was using a very buggy kernel module, so things were *hosed*). The original poster hasn't really provided enough information to know what is going on, and what the performance problem is. David Scheidt To Unsubscribe: send mail to majordomo@FreeBSD.org with "unsubscribe freebsd-hackers" in the body of the message