From owner-freebsd-hackers@FreeBSD.ORG  Sun Dec 30 20:03:14 2012
Return-Path: <owner-freebsd-hackers@FreeBSD.ORG>
Delivered-To: freebsd-hackers@freebsd.org
Received: from mx1.freebsd.org (mx1.freebsd.org [69.147.83.52])
 by hub.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 5AFB6D27
 for <freebsd-hackers@freebsd.org>; Sun, 30 Dec 2012 20:03:14 +0000 (UTC)
 (envelope-from freebsd@psconsult.nl)
Received: from mx1.psconsult.nl (unknown [IPv6:2001:7b8:30f:e0::5059:ee8a])
 by mx1.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id D942C8FC0C
 for <freebsd-hackers@freebsd.org>; Sun, 30 Dec 2012 20:03:13 +0000 (UTC)
Received: from mx1.psconsult.nl (mx1.hvnu.psconsult.nl [46.44.189.154])
 by mx1.psconsult.nl (8.14.5/8.14.4) with ESMTP id qBUK37lK090563
 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=DHE-RSA-AES256-SHA bits=256 verify=NO)
 for <freebsd-hackers@freebsd.org>; Sun, 30 Dec 2012 21:03:12 +0100 (CET)
 (envelope-from freebsd@psconsult.nl)
Received: (from paul@localhost)
 by mx1.psconsult.nl (8.14.5/8.14.4/Submit) id qBUK37gd090542
 for freebsd-hackers@freebsd.org; Sun, 30 Dec 2012 21:03:07 +0100 (CET)
 (envelope-from freebsd@psconsult.nl)
X-Authentication-Warning: mx1.psconsult.nl: paul set sender to
 freebsd@psconsult.nl using -f
Date: Sun, 30 Dec 2012 21:03:07 +0100
From: Paul Schenkeveld <freebsd@psconsult.nl>
To: freebsd-hackers@freebsd.org
Subject: Re: UFS1 vs UFS2
Message-ID: <20121230200307.GA69873@psconsult.nl>
References: <alpine.BSF.2.00.1212301420030.3192@wojtek.tensor.gdynia.pl>
 <20121230193926.GA37126@psconsult.nl>
 <alpine.BSF.2.00.1212302041380.4966@wojtek.tensor.gdynia.pl>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Disposition: inline
In-Reply-To: <alpine.BSF.2.00.1212302041380.4966@wojtek.tensor.gdynia.pl>
User-Agent: Mutt/1.5.21 (2010-09-15)
X-BeenThere: freebsd-hackers@freebsd.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.14
Precedence: list
List-Id: Technical Discussions relating to FreeBSD
 <freebsd-hackers.freebsd.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/options/freebsd-hackers>, 
 <mailto:freebsd-hackers-request@freebsd.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <http://lists.freebsd.org/pipermail/freebsd-hackers>
List-Post: <mailto:freebsd-hackers@freebsd.org>
List-Help: <mailto:freebsd-hackers-request@freebsd.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-hackers>,
 <mailto:freebsd-hackers-request@freebsd.org?subject=subscribe>
X-List-Received-Date: Sun, 30 Dec 2012 20:03:14 -0000

On Sun, Dec 30, 2012 at 08:42:27PM +0100, Wojciech Puchar wrote:
> > It makes perfect sense to use UFS1 on systems where space savings matter
> > unless your application requires any of the new features that are not
> > present in UFS1.
> >
> > Nanobsd(8) for example uses UFS1 by default too.
> thank you for answering. i don't need any new extra features, just plain 
> filesystem on 60GB filesystem. But question is - will performance be the 
> same, slower or faster?

I don't think performance will be much different but if so, UFS1 would
be (sightly) faster than UFS2 because one page read will get more inodes
from disk and 32 bit (UFS1) arithmetic may be slightly faster than 64 bit
(UFS2).

If performance is an issue, consider turning off atime updates or even
mount the filesystem read-only if possible.

HTH

Paul Schenkeveld