From owner-freebsd-hackers Wed Feb 7 10:13:35 1996 Return-Path: owner-hackers Received: (from root@localhost) by freefall.freebsd.org (8.7.3/8.7.3) id KAA16098 for hackers-outgoing; Wed, 7 Feb 1996 10:13:35 -0800 (PST) Received: from eac.iafrica.com (slipper101143.iafrica.com [196.7.101.143]) by freefall.freebsd.org (8.7.3/8.7.3) with SMTP id KAA16090 for ; Wed, 7 Feb 1996 10:13:29 -0800 (PST) Received: (from rnordier@localhost) by eac.iafrica.com (8.6.12/8.6.12) id UAA00245; Wed, 7 Feb 1996 20:10:10 +0200 From: Robert Nordier Message-Id: <199602071810.UAA00245@eac.iafrica.com> Subject: Re: FAT filesystem performance To: leisner@sdsp.mc.xerox.com (Marty Leisner) Date: Wed, 7 Feb 1996 20:10:08 +0200 (SAT) Cc: terry@lambert.org, hackers@freebsd.org In-Reply-To: <9602071645.AA04991@gnu.mc.xerox.com> from "Marty Leisner" at Feb 7, 96 08:45:06 am X-Mailer: ELM [version 2.4 PL24 ME8a] MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: owner-hackers@freebsd.org Precedence: bulk On Wed, 7 Feb 1996, Marty Leisner wrote: > Maybe caching is a big win... > > It can't hurt with readonly file systems... > > I found (on linux) doing iozone I got about the same > performance from msdos and ext2, doing an ls on ghostscript gave > me time for a coffee break on msdos... Thanks for that thought. It's worth generating some statistics as a help in deciding the caching issue, and I've been meaning to set something up. On MS-DOS, it's possible to determine buffer contents in terms of FAT/DIR/DATA sectors, so it shouldn't be too hard to find out what exactly is happening there. -- Robert Nordier