Date: Wed, 27 Oct 1999 17:00:43 -0700 From: Don Lewis <Don.Lewis@tsc.tdk.com> To: Julian Elischer <julian@whistle.com>, Mike Smith <mike@smith.net.au> Cc: Ilia Chipitsine <ilia@cgilh.chel.su>, David Scheidt <dscheidt@enteract.com>, Chuck Robey <chuckr@picnic.mat.net>, Ben Rosengart <ben@skunk.org>, Chuck Youse <cyouse@paradox.nexuslabs.com>, questions@FreeBSD.ORG, hackers@FreeBSD.ORG Subject: Re: why FFS is THAT slower than EXT2 ? Message-ID: <199910280000.RAA11954@salsa.gv.tsc.tdk.com> In-Reply-To: Julian Elischer <julian@whistle.com> "Re: why FFS is THAT slower than EXT2 ?" (Oct 27, 2:51pm)
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
On Oct 27, 2:51pm, Julian Elischer wrote: } Subject: Re: why FFS is THAT slower than EXT2 ? } } } On Wed, 27 Oct 1999, Mike Smith wrote: } } > > in order to save space I gzip'ped output of my tests. } > > ungzipping ports tarball on FreeBSD took 28 min } > > on Linux --- about 2.5 times faster. } > } > This is something we already know, and it's not the sort of test that } > you should ever headline as "why is FFS so much slower"? } } Kirk has said that it would be possible for the FFS to modify its } behaviour if it notices this usage pattern. The basic problem is that the directory layout policy that FFS uses is very non-optimal in this case. This was discussed extensively on freebsd-hackers last year, search the list archive for Reading/writing /usr/ports VERY slow Carl Mascott noticed nearly a 3x speedup when he untarred /usr/ports on FFS filesystem that was generated with only one cylinder group. To Unsubscribe: send mail to majordomo@FreeBSD.org with "unsubscribe freebsd-hackers" in the body of the message
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?199910280000.RAA11954>