From owner-freebsd-fs Thu Mar 5 10:42:38 1998 Return-Path: Received: (from majordom@localhost) by hub.freebsd.org (8.8.8/8.8.8) id KAA26220 for freebsd-fs-outgoing; Thu, 5 Mar 1998 10:42:38 -0800 (PST) (envelope-from owner-freebsd-fs@FreeBSD.ORG) Received: from saturn.fast-ag.de (saturn.aladdin.de [194.123.19.3]) by hub.freebsd.org (8.8.8/8.8.8) with SMTP id KAA26212 for ; Thu, 5 Mar 1998 10:42:31 -0800 (PST) (envelope-from cpg@aladdin.de) Received: by saturn.fast-ag.de(Lotus SMTP MTA v1.06 (346.4 3-18-1997)) id 412565BE.0067B0E5 ; Thu, 5 Mar 1998 19:52:34 +0100 X-Lotus-FromDomain: AKS From: "Christian Groessler" To: nate@mt.sri.com cc: fs@FreeBSD.ORG Message-ID: <412565BE.0065BED5.00@saturn.fast-ag.de> Date: Thu, 5 Mar 1998 19:33:56 +0100 Subject: Re: [bouyer@antioche.lip6.fr: bi-endian ffs available] Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Sender: owner-freebsd-fs@FreeBSD.ORG Precedence: bulk X-Loop: FreeBSD.org On 3/5/98 7:06:16 PM Nate Williams wrote: > >[ FS for big/little endian switch ] > >> > Not if performance matters to you, which it does to me. >> >> I seem to remember about .5 percent performance loss being mentioned in >> later messages. > >I have a *REALLY* hard time believing that number, because for every read/write you potentially do byte-swapping. Earlier attempts at such a >thing at I believe Univ. of Utah were on the order of 10-15% if I >remember right. (Which I might not be.) This 10-15% are the case when swapping occurs, I think? It's plain stupid to use the wrong byte order for your host harddisk: then you deserve that performance loss :-) And for removable media, interoperability matters more than speed. imo. regards, chris To Unsubscribe: send mail to majordomo@FreeBSD.org with "unsubscribe freebsd-fs" in the body of the message