Date: Sun, 30 Dec 2012 21:03:07 +0100 From: Paul Schenkeveld <freebsd@psconsult.nl> To: freebsd-hackers@freebsd.org Subject: Re: UFS1 vs UFS2 Message-ID: <20121230200307.GA69873@psconsult.nl> In-Reply-To: <alpine.BSF.2.00.1212302041380.4966@wojtek.tensor.gdynia.pl> References: <alpine.BSF.2.00.1212301420030.3192@wojtek.tensor.gdynia.pl> <20121230193926.GA37126@psconsult.nl> <alpine.BSF.2.00.1212302041380.4966@wojtek.tensor.gdynia.pl>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
On Sun, Dec 30, 2012 at 08:42:27PM +0100, Wojciech Puchar wrote: > > It makes perfect sense to use UFS1 on systems where space savings matter > > unless your application requires any of the new features that are not > > present in UFS1. > > > > Nanobsd(8) for example uses UFS1 by default too. > thank you for answering. i don't need any new extra features, just plain > filesystem on 60GB filesystem. But question is - will performance be the > same, slower or faster? I don't think performance will be much different but if so, UFS1 would be (sightly) faster than UFS2 because one page read will get more inodes from disk and 32 bit (UFS1) arithmetic may be slightly faster than 64 bit (UFS2). If performance is an issue, consider turning off atime updates or even mount the filesystem read-only if possible. HTH Paul Schenkeveld
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?20121230200307.GA69873>