Date: Fri, 21 May 1999 01:59:47 +0200 From: Eivind Eklund <eivind@FreeBSD.ORG> To: David Kelly <dkelly@hiwaay.net> Cc: The Hermit Hacker <scrappy@hub.org>, freebsd-chat@FreeBSD.ORG Subject: Re: SGI, XFS and OSS? Message-ID: <19990521015947.R76043@bitbox.follo.net> In-Reply-To: <199905202101.QAA79579@nospam.hiwaay.net>; from David Kelly on Thu, May 20, 1999 at 04:01:22PM -0500 References: <eivind@FreeBSD.ORG> <199905202101.QAA79579@nospam.hiwaay.net>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
On Thu, May 20, 1999 at 04:01:22PM -0500, David Kelly wrote: [On FreeBSD w/soft updates being slower than XFS] > Yup. But all measurements were seat-of-the-pants. Didn't much bother to > time things as at the time all that could do was to make me unhappy. An > SGI system could fly right thru tar'ing FreeBSD's ports tree, either on > read from tape or write to tape, where FreeBSD 3.1 with softupdates and > 2.2.8 (without) can't keep the DDS-2 tape drive streaming (400k/sec). > 10k blocksize in both cases. > > At my now former employer, I kept /home/ncvs and /usr/ports hosted on an > SGI O2, 180MHz, 64MB RAM, and let the FreeBSD systems access via 10baseT > ethernet. Mostly because the SGI was where disk space was available. > Partly because it seemed faster. > > Another good test of speed was "rm -rf /usr/ports". The O2 could do it > so fast it was frightening. Heh - both of those are due to problems with the directory layout logic, I think, not due to problems with FFS in itself. The logic for where to put the inode for new directories is very bad for the ports collection; it should be tuned. However, I do not see that as a reason for replacing the entire FS code :-) It is possible XFS will be faster no matter what, but I don't think it will be that much faster. Eivind. To Unsubscribe: send mail to majordomo@FreeBSD.org with "unsubscribe freebsd-chat" in the body of the message
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?19990521015947.R76043>