From owner-freebsd-hackers  Wed May 23  6:53:20 2001
Delivered-To: freebsd-hackers@freebsd.org
Received: from smtpproxy1.mitre.org (mb-20-100.mitre.org [129.83.20.100])
	by hub.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id D59C737B424
	for <freebsd-hackers@FreeBSD.ORG>; Wed, 23 May 2001 06:53:16 -0700 (PDT)
	(envelope-from jandrese@mitre.org)
Received: from avsrv1.mitre.org (avsrv1.mitre.org [129.83.20.58])
	by smtpproxy1.mitre.org (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id JAA05661
	for <freebsd-hackers@FreeBSD.ORG>; Wed, 23 May 2001 09:53:15 -0400 (EDT)
Received: from mailsrv2.mitre.org (mailsrv2.mitre.org [129.83.221.17])
	by smtpsrv1.mitre.org (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id JAA20216
	for <freebsd-hackers@FreeBSD.ORG>; Wed, 23 May 2001 09:53:14 -0400 (EDT)
Received: from nausicaa.mitre.org ([128.29.105.85]) by
          mailsrv2.mitre.org (Netscape Messaging Server 4.15) with ESMTP
          id GDSJWP00.CWH; Wed, 23 May 2001 09:53:13 -0400 
Date: Wed, 23 May 2001 08:45:51 -0400 (EDT)
From: "Andresen,Jason R." <jandrese@mitre.org>
To: "Daniel C. Sobral" <dcs@newsguy.com>
Cc: <freebsd-hackers@FreeBSD.ORG>
Subject: Re: technical comparison
In-Reply-To: <3B0B089A.AA97F518@newsguy.com>
Message-ID: <20010523083213.T87127-100000@nausicaa.mitre.org>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII
Sender: owner-freebsd-hackers@FreeBSD.ORG
Precedence: bulk
List-ID: <freebsd-hackers.FreeBSD.ORG>
List-Archive: <http://docs.freebsd.org/mail/> (Web Archive)
List-Help: <mailto:majordomo?subject=help> (List Instructions)
List-Subscribe: <mailto:majordomo?subject=subscribe%20freebsd-hackers>
List-Unsubscribe: <mailto:majordomo?subject=unsubscribe%20freebsd-hackers>
X-Loop: FreeBSD.ORG

On Tue, 22 May 2001, Daniel C. Sobral wrote:

> Jason Andresen wrote:
> >
> > Results:
> > ufs+softupdates is a little slower than ext2fs+wc for low numbers of
> > files, but scales better.  I wish I had a Reiserfs partition to
> > test with.
>
> Ext2fs is a non-contender.
>
> Note, though, that there is some very recent perfomance improvement on
> very large directories known as dirpref (what changed, actually, was
> dirpref's algorithm). This is NOT present on 4.3-RELEASE, though it
> _might_ have since been committed to stable.

The new dirpref code is mostly just a performance tweak.  We can't compete
with ReiserFS on large directories without a major improvement to the
code, assuming the previous post was true and ReiserFS has some log time
components where ufs has linear time components.

Note that the improvement from using the new dirpref code is about 12%,
which isn't bad, but still doesn't put us in the right ballpark.


To Unsubscribe: send mail to majordomo@FreeBSD.org
with "unsubscribe freebsd-hackers" in the body of the message