Date: Sun, 30 Dec 2012 21:47:49 +0100 From: Paul Schenkeveld <freebsd@psconsult.nl> To: Wojciech Puchar <wojtek@wojtek.tensor.gdynia.pl> Cc: freebsd-hackers@freebsd.org Subject: Re: UFS1 vs UFS2 Message-ID: <20121230204749.GA2295@psconsult.nl> In-Reply-To: <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> <alpine.BSF.2.00.1212302128320.62548@wojtek.tensor.gdynia.pl>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
On Sun, Dec 30, 2012 at 09:29:27PM +0100, Wojciech Puchar wrote: > > > > 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. Also, look at the -i option of newfs, for many purposes the default number of inodes it allocates is far more than sufficient > > 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.
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?20121230204749.GA2295>