From owner-freebsd-hackers Wed Oct 27 12:48:30 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 5D46B14D9A; Wed, 27 Oct 1999 12:48:25 -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 OAA23837; Wed, 27 Oct 1999 14:48:04 -0500 (CDT) (envelope-from dscheidt@enteract.com) Date: Wed, 27 Oct 1999 14:48:04 -0500 (CDT) From: David Scheidt To: "Ronald G. Minnich" Cc: Ilia Chipitsine , 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 On Wed, 27 Oct 1999, Ronald G. Minnich wrote: > On Wed, 27 Oct 1999, Ilia Chipitsine wrote: > > 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. > > And it's a good thing because ... well, maybe because it's not that > reliable an FS. I actually can't see it as a good thing if you have a file > system that doesn't need it. I seem to recall that ULTRIX had such a mechanism. There must have been other things that decremented the counter though, because my /home filesystem got fscked nearly every reboot. /usr would only be if the machine was up a really long time. DAvid Scheidt To Unsubscribe: send mail to majordomo@FreeBSD.org with "unsubscribe freebsd-hackers" in the body of the message