From owner-freebsd-hackers@FreeBSD.ORG  Sun Dec 30 20:47:56 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 B48F0877
 for <freebsd-hackers@freebsd.org>; Sun, 30 Dec 2012 20:47:56 +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 3DF528FC0A
 for <freebsd-hackers@freebsd.org>; Sun, 30 Dec 2012 20:47:55 +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 qBUKlnT8002393
 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=DHE-RSA-AES256-SHA bits=256 verify=NO);
 Sun, 30 Dec 2012 21:47:54 +0100 (CET)
 (envelope-from freebsd@psconsult.nl)
Received: (from paul@localhost)
 by mx1.psconsult.nl (8.14.5/8.14.4/Submit) id qBUKlnPH002392;
 Sun, 30 Dec 2012 21:47:49 +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 21:47:49 +0100
From: Paul Schenkeveld <freebsd@psconsult.nl>
To: Wojciech Puchar <wojtek@wojtek.tensor.gdynia.pl>
Subject: Re: UFS1 vs UFS2
Message-ID: <20121230204749.GA2295@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>
 <20121230200307.GA69873@psconsult.nl>
 <alpine.BSF.2.00.1212302128320.62548@wojtek.tensor.gdynia.pl>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Disposition: inline
In-Reply-To: <alpine.BSF.2.00.1212302128320.62548@wojtek.tensor.gdynia.pl>
User-Agent: Mutt/1.5.21 (2010-09-15)
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 20:47:56 -0000

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.