Date: Wed, 27 Oct 1999 23:59:07 +0600 (ESS) From: Ilia Chipitsine <ilia@cgilh.chel.su> To: David Scheidt <dscheidt@enteract.com> Cc: Chuck Robey <chuckr@picnic.mat.net>, Ben Rosengart <ben@skunk.org>, Chuck Youse <cyouse@paradox.nexuslabs.com>, questions@FreeBSD.ORG, hackers@FreeBSD.ORG Subject: Re: why FFS is THAT slower than EXT2 ? Message-ID: <Pine.BSF.4.10.9910272357290.760-100000@localhost.cgu.chel.su> In-Reply-To: <Pine.NEB.3.96.991027114004.66448B-100000@shell-1.enteract.com>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- On Wed, 27 Oct 1999, David Scheidt wrote: > 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. in order to save space I gzip'ped output of my tests. ungzipping ports tarball on FreeBSD took 28 min on Linux --- about 2.5 times faster. there's output of "time sh install.sh". > > > David Scheidt > -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- Version: 2.6.3ia Charset: noconv iQB1AwUBOBc9bORxlWKN2EXhAQGrxgL+PBNSU1hMNRh3mA/zvQQ/OqvlsGfrr5Bc octa9cLZ3acWrZ3WXtd4CZVy75d/mKtEophUAmKWVsmvRPj0cUjvI6iZmq5EOpK4 dRxBkFFl6jyjns1SSOxBQ8tfdTby0MyZ =upZS -----END PGP SIGNATURE----- To Unsubscribe: send mail to majordomo@FreeBSD.org with "unsubscribe freebsd-hackers" in the body of the message
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?Pine.BSF.4.10.9910272357290.760-100000>