From owner-freebsd-current Tue Nov 12 22:53:08 1996 Return-Path: owner-current Received: (from root@localhost) by freefall.freebsd.org (8.7.5/8.7.3) id WAA28634 for current-outgoing; Tue, 12 Nov 1996 22:53:08 -0800 (PST) Received: from mx.serv.net (mx.serv.net [199.201.191.10]) by freefall.freebsd.org (8.7.5/8.7.3) with ESMTP id WAA28625 for ; Tue, 12 Nov 1996 22:53:04 -0800 (PST) Received: from MindBender.serv.net by mx.serv.net (8.7.5/SERV Revision: 2.30) id WAA11677; Tue, 12 Nov 1996 22:53:09 -0800 (PST) Received: from localhost.HeadCandy.com (michaelv@localhost.HeadCandy.com [127.0.0.1]) by MindBender.serv.net (8.7.5/8.7.3) with SMTP id WAA08685; Tue, 12 Nov 1996 22:52:53 -0800 (PST) Message-Id: <199611130652.WAA08685@MindBender.serv.net> X-Authentication-Warning: MindBender.serv.net: Host michaelv@localhost.HeadCandy.com [127.0.0.1] didn't use HELO protocol To: "Justin T. Gibbs" cc: Mark Mayo , Terry Lambert , roberto@keltia.freenix.fr, freebsd-current@freebsd.org Subject: Re: ufs is too slow? In-reply-to: Your message of Tue, 12 Nov 96 12:25:08 -0800. <199611122025.MAA25041@freefall.freebsd.org> Date: Tue, 12 Nov 1996 22:52:44 -0800 From: "Michael L. VanLoon -- HeadCandy.com" Sender: owner-current@freebsd.org X-Loop: FreeBSD.org Precedence: bulk >>I just checked, and all they mention in the press_release is that they >>will be using the Veritas Volume Manger - I don't kow if this >>_necessarily_ implies use of the Veritas File sSystem. >The volume manager can work on other FS types too, but according to my friend >that works at Veritas, VxFS will be ported to NT. I'd have to check again >with him to see if they've struck a deal with MS similar to what they have >with other vendors (Sun and HP) where you pay X dollars extra and you get >VxFS in the box. I talked to an engineer in the NT development area (not filesystems, but he's well connected). His comment was basically that NTFS will still be the de-facto FS. If VxFS comes with NT, it will be a supplementary type of deal, and not a replacement for NTFS. Obviously, this is not a statement in any way, shape, or form, that should be taken as "official" from Microsoft. >The main reason MS is looking to Veritas is that NTFS just doesn't perform >when striped or mirrored. The NOW project at Cal did I/O comparison studies >on x86 platforms using Solaris, FreeBSD, Linux and NT and found that while >FreeBSD and Solaris could achieve upwards of 30MB/s through a striped file >system, NT topped out at around 9MB/s. This was NT3.51 - they may have >improved things for 4.0. Several areas of the kernel have improved, performance-wise, in 4.0 (the obvious being the graphics stuff, but also some of the more important areas in multi-processor contention, as well). I don't know if this affects NTFS performance in any substantial way. ----------------------------------------------------------------------------- Michael L. VanLoon michaelv@MindBender.serv.net --< Free your mind and your machine -- NetBSD free un*x >-- NetBSD working ports: 386+PC, Mac 68k, Amiga, Atari 68k, HP300, Sun3, Sun4/4c/4m, DEC MIPS, DEC Alpha, PC532, VAX, MVME68k, arm32... NetBSD ports in progress: PICA, others... -----------------------------------------------------------------------------