From owner-freebsd-hackers@FreeBSD.ORG  Sun Dec 30 20:29:29 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 4E1312FB
 for <freebsd-hackers@freebsd.org>; Sun, 30 Dec 2012 20:29:29 +0000 (UTC)
 (envelope-from wojtek@wojtek.tensor.gdynia.pl)
Received: from wojtek.tensor.gdynia.pl (wojtek.tensor.gdynia.pl
 [188.252.31.196])
 by mx1.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 9A1A28FC08
 for <freebsd-hackers@freebsd.org>; Sun, 30 Dec 2012 20:29:28 +0000 (UTC)
Received: from wojtek.tensor.gdynia.pl (localhost [127.0.0.1])
 by wojtek.tensor.gdynia.pl (8.14.5/8.14.5) with ESMTP id qBUKTRMs062912;
 Sun, 30 Dec 2012 21:29:27 +0100 (CET)
 (envelope-from wojtek@wojtek.tensor.gdynia.pl)
Received: from localhost (wojtek@localhost)
 by wojtek.tensor.gdynia.pl (8.14.5/8.14.5/Submit) with ESMTP id qBUKTRrx062909;
 Sun, 30 Dec 2012 21:29:27 +0100 (CET)
 (envelope-from wojtek@wojtek.tensor.gdynia.pl)
Date: Sun, 30 Dec 2012 21:29:27 +0100 (CET)
From: Wojciech Puchar <wojtek@wojtek.tensor.gdynia.pl>
To: Paul Schenkeveld <freebsd@psconsult.nl>
Subject: Re: UFS1 vs UFS2
In-Reply-To: <20121230200307.GA69873@psconsult.nl>
Message-ID: <alpine.BSF.2.00.1212302128320.62548@wojtek.tensor.gdynia.pl>
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>
 <20121230200307.GA69873@psconsult.nl>
User-Agent: Alpine 2.00 (BSF 1167 2008-08-23)
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII; format=flowed
X-Greylist: Sender passed SPF test, not delayed by milter-greylist-4.2.7
 (wojtek.tensor.gdynia.pl [127.0.0.1]); Sun, 30 Dec 2012 21:29:27 +0100 (CET)
Cc: freebsd-hackers@freebsd.org
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 20:29:29 -0000

>
> 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).

thanks for answer i was looking for! i will rebuild FS to UFS1, saving ca 
1GB for inodes.

> If performance is an issue, consider turning off atime updates or even
> mount the filesystem read-only if possible.
i always turn off atime and use softupdates.

it cannot be readonly.