From owner-freebsd-questions@FreeBSD.ORG Fri Jan 13 20:44:59 2006 Return-Path: X-Original-To: freebsd-questions@freebsd.org Delivered-To: freebsd-questions@freebsd.org Received: from mx1.FreeBSD.org (mx1.freebsd.org [216.136.204.125]) by hub.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 5642516A420 for ; Fri, 13 Jan 2006 20:44:59 +0000 (GMT) (envelope-from kris@obsecurity.org) Received: from elvis.mu.org (elvis.mu.org [192.203.228.196]) by mx1.FreeBSD.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id BCB2643D70 for ; Fri, 13 Jan 2006 20:44:52 +0000 (GMT) (envelope-from kris@obsecurity.org) Received: from obsecurity.dyndns.org (elvis.mu.org [192.203.228.196]) by elvis.mu.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 9B8211A3C27; Fri, 13 Jan 2006 12:44:52 -0800 (PST) Received: by obsecurity.dyndns.org (Postfix, from userid 1000) id B245354B8E; Fri, 13 Jan 2006 15:44:51 -0500 (EST) Date: Fri, 13 Jan 2006 15:44:51 -0500 From: Kris Kennaway To: fbsd_user Message-ID: <20060113204450.GF47416@xor.obsecurity.org> References: <43C540A1.7060805@ntlworld.com> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: multipart/signed; micalg=pgp-sha1; protocol="application/pgp-signature"; boundary="7mxbaLlpDEyR1+x6" Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: User-Agent: Mutt/1.4.2.1i Cc: Crispy Beef , freebsd-questions@freebsd.org Subject: Re: 4.6-RELEASE to 6.0-RELEASE... X-BeenThere: freebsd-questions@freebsd.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.5 Precedence: list List-Id: User questions List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Fri, 13 Jan 2006 20:44:59 -0000 --7mxbaLlpDEyR1+x6 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline On Wed, Jan 11, 2006 at 02:08:11PM -0500, fbsd_user wrote: > There is a new and faster file system which is introduced in > release-5.4. Performance benefits weren't a goal of UFS2. If your disk hardware is fast enough (i.e. not crappy ATA hardware) you might see a small performance boost, as I did in my tests. The cause of this isn't well-understood, i.e. it seems to be a side-effect of something else. The cost is that UFS2 performs more disk I/O than UFS1, which means that if your disk hardware is already saturated (see: aforementioned crappy ATA hardware), it may actually be slower. Kris --7mxbaLlpDEyR1+x6 Content-Type: application/pgp-signature Content-Disposition: inline -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- Version: GnuPG v1.4.2 (FreeBSD) iD8DBQFDyBFCWry0BWjoQKURAoCMAKDTDKAIUFMdotMZaN2rXPqTWb/I8QCfbnEe QuGk68LZYx0wVOIjBz7uiuk= =qBL1 -----END PGP SIGNATURE----- --7mxbaLlpDEyR1+x6--