Date: Mon, 15 Feb 1999 09:07:30 -0600 From: "Thomas T. Veldhouse" <veldy@visi.com> To: "Karl Pielorz" <kpielorz@tdx.co.uk>, "Thomas van Gulick" <melkor@Cal040031.student.utwente.nl> Cc: <freebsd-questions@FreeBSD.ORG> Subject: Re: FreeBSD performance Message-ID: <014201be58f5$373cb5f0$236319ac@w142844.carlson.com>
next in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
-----Original Message----- From: Karl Pielorz <kpielorz@tdx.co.uk> To: Thomas van Gulick <melkor@Cal040031.student.utwente.nl> Cc: freebsd-questions@FreeBSD.ORG <freebsd-questions@FreeBSD.ORG> Date: Monday, February 15, 1999 8:55 AM Subject: Re: FreeBSD performance >If your running -Current try switching to softupdates rather than async IO - >The _only_ area I found Linux used to be quicker than FreeBSD was with >filesystem throughput, which is apparntly because they run their filesystem as >the equivalent of 'sync', I'd always been more than willing to pay the price >of 'async' vs. 'sync' on the damage recovery front... Actually Linux runs "async" by default, not the equivalent of "sync". I once had Linux crash during the X-Windows source untar, and the filesystem was so corrupted I had to reinstall. Other features of the Linux filesystem seems to slow things down. While untarring source code you get the impression that it is much faster than FreeBSD. However, when it has finished, you will find the filesystem get unresponsive for a second if you try to start another I/O intensive operation, presumable the cache is dumping to disk. I was never truly happy with ext2, it was too easy to corrupt. I have yet to corrupt UFS so badly that I can't rebuild it with relative ease, even using "async". Tom Veldhouse veldy@visi.com To Unsubscribe: send mail to majordomo@FreeBSD.org with "unsubscribe freebsd-questions" in the body of the message
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?014201be58f5$373cb5f0$236319ac>