From owner-freebsd-hackers Mon Feb 5 04:40:48 1996 Return-Path: owner-hackers Received: (from root@localhost) by freefall.freebsd.org (8.7.3/8.7.3) id EAA24419 for hackers-outgoing; Mon, 5 Feb 1996 04:40:48 -0800 (PST) Received: from labinfo.iet.unipi.it (labinfo.iet.unipi.it [131.114.9.5]) by freefall.freebsd.org (8.7.3/8.7.3) with SMTP id EAA24362 for ; Mon, 5 Feb 1996 04:39:02 -0800 (PST) Received: from localhost (luigi@localhost) by labinfo.iet.unipi.it (8.6.5/8.6.5) id NAA20897; Mon, 5 Feb 1996 13:31:51 +0100 From: Luigi Rizzo Message-Id: <199602051231.NAA20897@labinfo.iet.unipi.it> Subject: Re: FAT filesystem performance To: rnordier@iafrica.com (Robert Nordier) Date: Mon, 5 Feb 1996 13:31:51 +0100 (MET) Cc: bde@zeta.org.au, hackers@FreeBSD.ORG In-Reply-To: <199602051051.MAA04211@eac.iafrica.com> from "Robert Nordier" at Feb 5, 96 12:50:53 pm X-Mailer: ELM [version 2.4 PL23] Content-Type: text Sender: owner-hackers@FreeBSD.ORG Precedence: bulk > > I wonder if he thought about maximal FATs with 64K * 1.5 byte entries. > > They would barely fit on a 160K floppy :-). Pardon me, 1.5 byte entries mean by defiitiion at most 4K entries, i.e. 12K total per two FATs. Fits nicely on a disk! > I'd go along with that: and certainly not the msdosfs at the expense of > other fs-es. One thing they did find with the MS-DOS LRU scheme was that > FAT sectors tended to "un-cache" too readily. Different prioritization > could resolve that. All the above is correct, but keep in mind that it depends a lot on how many BUFFERS=xxx you declare in your config files. And this is often a small number, which explains the poor performance of the cache. Luigi ==================================================================== Luigi Rizzo Dip. di Ingegneria dell'Informazione email: luigi@iet.unipi.it Universita' di Pisa tel: +39-50-568533 via Diotisalvi 2, 56126 PISA (Italy) fax: +39-50-568522 http://www.iet.unipi.it/~luigi/ ====================================================================