Date: Fri, 11 May 2001 20:03:00 -0400 From: "Rod Taylor" <rbt@barchord.com> To: <stable@freebsd.org> Subject: Re: fat32 slower than dogshit? Message-ID: <083a01c0da76$e81b1920$2205010a@jester> References: <20010511151056.J15049-100000@warez.scriptkiddie.org> <3AFC7509.E0DAFE66@cvzoom.net>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
That said, it's been thought that Fat32 could actually help programs like Postgres which currently fight with the caching abilities of the UFS code in order to make it transaction safe -- and slows it down. Very simple studies showed that fat32 over ext2 was a 20% speed increase for the WAL log. So... it is useful -- in it's simplicity. -- Rod Taylor There are always four sides to every story: your side, their side, the truth, and what really happened. ----- Original Message ----- From: "Donn Miller" <dmmiller@cvzoom.net> To: "Lamont Granquist" <lamont@scriptkiddie.org> Cc: <stable@FreeBSD.ORG> Sent: Friday, May 11, 2001 7:26 PM Subject: Re: fat32 slower than dogshit? > Lamont Granquist wrote: > > > > Well, i think it is, i'm actually not too sure exactly how fast dogshit is > > in the first place. But in doing a simple untar on a fat32 partition > > using both 4-stable a couple days after release and a recently updated > > 4-stable as of yesterday (5/10) it goes about 20-30 times slower than an > > untar on a UFS partition. > > That sounds about right. This is one of many reasons I don't run WinDOS > anymore. > > To Unsubscribe: send mail to majordomo@FreeBSD.org > with "unsubscribe freebsd-stable" in the body of the message > To Unsubscribe: send mail to majordomo@FreeBSD.org with "unsubscribe freebsd-stable" in the body of the message
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?083a01c0da76$e81b1920$2205010a>