From owner-freebsd-hackers Wed Oct 27 10:56:29 1999 Delivered-To: freebsd-hackers@freebsd.org Received: from mobil.surnet.ru (mobil.surnet.ru [195.54.2.7]) by hub.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id DCDEF15319; Wed, 27 Oct 1999 10:56:18 -0700 (PDT) (envelope-from ilia@cgilh.chel.su) Received: (from uucgilh@localhost) by mobil.surnet.ru (8.9.1a/8.9.1) with UUCP id XAA07114; Wed, 27 Oct 1999 23:50:28 +0600 (ESS) Received: (from uucp@localhost) by cgilh.chel.su (8.8.7/8.8.7) with UUCP id XAA01035; Wed, 27 Oct 1999 23:40:14 +0600 Received: from localhost (ilia@localhost) by localhost.cgu.chel.su (8.9.3/8.9.2) with ESMTP id XAA00957; Wed, 27 Oct 1999 23:40:07 +0600 (ESS) (envelope-from ilia@cgilh.chel.su) X-Authentication-Warning: localhost.cgu.chel.su: ilia owned process doing -bs Date: Wed, 27 Oct 1999 23:40:05 +0600 (ESS) From: Ilia Chipitsine X-Sender: ilia@localhost.cgu.chel.su To: "Ronald G. Minnich" Cc: Chuck Youse , 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 -----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- On Wed, 27 Oct 1999, Ronald G. Minnich wrote: > 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. > > > To put it slightly more strongly: as far as I'm concerned ext2 is not a as far as I remember ext2 has some "counter". I used to use Linux and it performed 'fsck' from time to time (even if fs was clearly unmounted). that is a very good thing to have. I do not recall that FreeBSD did such thing. > serious fs if you really care about handling power failures and other such > fun things. In clusters as small as 64 machines I've measured a 5% what is standard deviation equal to ? "lanl" means Los-Alamos National Laboratory ? > probability that after a power failure one of the 64 ext2 file systems > will have a trashed root file system. With freebsd, over a four-year span, > running through lots of power outages, I didn't lose an FFS file system I DID lose FFS even it was mounted "sync", not async. > even *once* (except for the disk that burned up, but not even FFS can fix > that one). > > ext2 needs a lot of help. Evidently it will be getting it soon, though. > > ron > > > > To Unsubscribe: send mail to majordomo@FreeBSD.org > with "unsubscribe freebsd-questions" in the body of the message > -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- Version: 2.6.3ia Charset: noconv iQB1AwUBOBc49+RxlWKN2EXhAQGu5QL/REghsBodptbhMMnvDdKW5rkjaG7v9Mvh u9YWqQjPTlcbjKzrlncsHjDGp3uVJFhOaAdCehH//lhfzGUz7BOOMz9QJhhHEPdA UoghImMubxscz76Yc+qS3rTVGE/PqnOy =kZOJ -----END PGP SIGNATURE----- To Unsubscribe: send mail to majordomo@FreeBSD.org with "unsubscribe freebsd-hackers" in the body of the message