Date: Sat, 12 May 2001 20:54:52 -0700 (PDT) From: <lamont@scriptkiddie.org> To: <simond@irrelevant.org> Cc: <stable@freebsd.org> Subject: Re: fat32 slower than dogshit? Message-ID: <Pine.LNX.4.30.0105122045560.953-100000@coredump.scriptkiddie.org> In-Reply-To: <20010512074346.B18681@irrelevant.org>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
On Sat, 12 May 2001 simond@irrelevant.org wrote: > On Fri, May 11, 2001 at 03:19:21PM -0700, 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. Now i know fat32 is supposed to be slower than > > UFS, but this seems a little bit rediculous. Does this sound like a known > > problem? If someone wants more information I can probably dig down and > > get it if I know what you want... > > I noticed that the msdos filesystem got very slow myself a while back, for > me turning the write cache (ata(4)) back on helped speed things back up > again, it's not the ideal solution, but it worked for me. Well, based on the recent discussions in this list about IDE write caches, I'm not real hot on this as a solution. Is there some way to profile kernel execution in the driver or in the VFS layer to get an idea of what the driver is doing wrong? 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?Pine.LNX.4.30.0105122045560.953-100000>