Date: Mon, 05 May 2003 07:29:46 -0700 From: Terry Lambert <tlambert2@mindspring.com> To: Artem Tepponen <temik@egartech.com> Cc: freebsd-performance@freebsd.org Subject: Re: freebsd-performance Digest, Vol 3, Issue Message-ID: <3EB6755A.BC035326@mindspring.com> References: <5235EF9BAE6B7F4CB3735789EEF73B29B06A68@turtle.egar.egartech.com>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
Artem Tepponen wrote: > > Old People. > > > > It's the same reason that people think 8% of a 120GB hard drive > > is "a lot of space" and refuse to set their free reserve on their > > FS's high enough to avoid fragmentation. > > Should they be asking 'Why FS design is so flawed > that it has this requirement' instead? Not really. They should be asking "Why do I think this is an abnormal amount of overhead compared to, say, the second of the two journal files NT maintains?". > Is there any working FS for FreeBSD that does not have this requirement? There are several, including a number of Linux-originated ones; however, lacking the requirement, they are all subject to internal fragmentation and needing a defragger or cleaner process in order to deal with the problem. UFS doesn't require this. I wish people would read and understand Donald Knuth's books on algorithms... -- Terry
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?3EB6755A.BC035326>