Date: Mon, 31 Dec 2012 02:57:01 +0100 From: Joerg Sonnenberger <joerg@britannica.bec.de> To: freebsd-hackers@freebsd.org Subject: Re: UFS1 vs UFS2 Message-ID: <20121231015701.GA4711@britannica.bec.de> In-Reply-To: <20121230193926.GA37126@psconsult.nl> References: <alpine.BSF.2.00.1212301420030.3192@wojtek.tensor.gdynia.pl> <20121230193926.GA37126@psconsult.nl>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
On Sun, Dec 30, 2012 at 08:39:26PM +0100, Paul Schenkeveld wrote: > On Sun, Dec 30, 2012 at 02:21:26PM +0100, Wojciech Puchar wrote: > > OpenBSD by default use UFS1 for partitions smaller than 1TB. > > > > FreeBSD use always UFS2. UFS2 uses double the amount of space for inodes. > > basic operation seems the same. > > > > Does it make sense to use UFS1 for small filesystem (on SSD) that would > > have few millions of files. It will take less space for inodes, but how > > about performance? > > UFS2 became necessary when disk got bigger and sizes and block pointers > in metadata on UFS1 became too small to fully utilize the larger disks. There is also the possible concern of Extended Attributes. If you use them, you might be a lot more happy with UFS2. Joerg
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?20121231015701.GA4711>