From owner-freebsd-questions Sun Apr 1 21: 3:54 2001 Delivered-To: freebsd-questions@freebsd.org Received: from hotmail.com (f118.law11.hotmail.com [64.4.17.118]) by hub.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 0F24137B719 for ; Sun, 1 Apr 2001 21:03:51 -0700 (PDT) (envelope-from burnscharlesn@hotmail.com) Received: from mail pickup service by hotmail.com with Microsoft SMTPSVC; Sun, 1 Apr 2001 21:03:50 -0700 Received: from 24.21.122.151 by lw11fd.law11.hotmail.msn.com with HTTP; Mon, 02 Apr 2001 04:03:49 GMT X-Originating-IP: [24.21.122.151] From: "Charles Burns" To: questions@freebsd.org, dphoenix@bravenet.com Subject: Re: how can you say ufs is faster? Date: Sun, 01 Apr 2001 21:03:49 -0700 Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; format=flowed Message-ID: X-OriginalArrivalTime: 02 Apr 2001 04:03:50.0203 (UTC) FILETIME=[EC7CD0B0:01C0BB29] Sender: owner-freebsd-questions@FreeBSD.ORG Precedence: bulk X-Loop: FreeBSD.ORG I am just citing my own tests. Transfering large streaming files was about 2% faster and transfering small files (4k) was about 6-8% faster. There are other factors in filesystem performance besides whether files are mounted synchronously or asynchronously, such as cluster size, metadata overhead, fragmentation, whether the FS is tuned for large or small files, whether the FS is designed to defragment itself in real time (like UFS) and how much effort it puts towards doing this (configurable with tunefs), the controller chip, the IDE driver, and even the physical location of the files on the hard drive. My tests could be wrong, as I never intended them to be true scientific comparisons. Note, however, that I tuned the filesystem on the Linux system using "hdparm" and did no tuning whatsoever with the FreeBSD system. The hard drive tested was a Maxtor DiamondMax Plus 40GB drive with 2 megs of 100MHz SDRAM cache. The drive is ATA100 capable, but is on an AMD751 controller so is at ATA66. The CPU is an Athlon classic at 750MHz, 1/3 speed cache memory (not the default of 1/2 speed). The files were not cached in RAM and both tests were on freshly installed systems. The Linux distribution was Slackware 7.1 and the FreeBSD installation was 4.2-RELEASE. Besides, you can mount UFS partitions asynch if you really want to. If your benchmarks show that Linux's EXT2 is faster, more power to you. I have other reasons for using FreeBSD even if that is indeed the case. "Use the right tool for the right job" :) Charles Burns >From: Dan Phoenix >To: burnscharlesn@hotmail.com >Subject: how can you say ufs is faster? >Date: Sun, 1 Apr 2001 16:30:01 -0700 (PDT) > > >ext2fs uses asyncrounous mounts. >more potential for data loss but a linux filesystem is quite faster >on say a single ide drive. > > > > > >-- >Dan > >+------------------------------------------------------+ >| BRAVENET WEB SERVICES | >| dan@bravenet.com | >| make installworld | >| ln -s /var/qmail/bin/sendmail /usr/sbin/sendmail | >| ln -s /var/qmail/bin/newaliases /usr/sbin/newaliases | >+______________________________________________________+ > _________________________________________________________________ Get your FREE download of MSN Explorer at http://explorer.msn.com To Unsubscribe: send mail to majordomo@FreeBSD.org with "unsubscribe freebsd-questions" in the body of the message