From owner-freebsd-current Mon Nov 11 06:36:22 1996 Return-Path: owner-current Received: (from root@localhost) by freefall.freebsd.org (8.7.5/8.7.3) id GAA17114 for current-outgoing; Mon, 11 Nov 1996 06:36:22 -0800 (PST) Received: from shadows.aeon.net (bsdcur@shadows.aeon.net [194.100.41.1]) by freefall.freebsd.org (8.7.5/8.7.3) with ESMTP id GAA17079 for ; Mon, 11 Nov 1996 06:36:02 -0800 (PST) Received: (from bsdcur@localhost) by shadows.aeon.net (8.7.5/8.6.9) id QAA23398 for freebsd-current@freebsd.org; Mon, 11 Nov 1996 16:35:53 +0200 (EET) From: mika ruohotie Message-Id: <199611111435.QAA23398@shadows.aeon.net> Subject: ufs is too slow? To: freebsd-current@freebsd.org Date: Mon, 11 Nov 1996 16:35:53 +0200 (EET) X-Mailer: ELM [version 2.4ME+ PL22 (25)] MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: owner-current@freebsd.org X-Loop: FreeBSD.org Precedence: bulk well... i posted this to usenet too... i was wondering if there's any truth here... my friend told me that the ufs filesystem is too slow for a high end nntp server usage... the average 7 articles per second is supposed to be too much, and that using some log type filesystem, like xfs (in sgi) would be better... he was saying that ufs cant create those 7 files in the second. is that so? mickey -- mika@aeon.net mika ruohotie