Date: Wed, 13 Jun 2001 10:20:58 +0930 From: Greg Lehey <grog@FreeBSD.org> To: Josef Karthauser <joe@tao.org.uk> Cc: Eric Parusel <lists@globalrelay.net>, freebsd-stable@freebsd.org Subject: XFS (was: The FreeBSD core team needs your help) Message-ID: <20010613102058.F5486@wantadilla.lemis.com> In-Reply-To: <20010612120958.G10614@tao.org.uk>; from joe@tao.org.uk on Tue, Jun 12, 2001 at 12:09:58PM %2B0100 References: <20010608134705.19635.qmail@web14701.mail.yahoo.com> <004001c0f030$36a0d3e0$0600020a@frontend> <20010612120958.G10614@tao.org.uk>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
On Tuesday, 12 June 2001 at 12:09:58 +0100, Josef Karthauser wrote: > On Fri, Jun 08, 2001 at 08:32:23AM -0700, Eric Parusel wrote: >>>> A journalling FS for those people who just hate waiting for a >> couple >>>> of >>>> TB of slow disks to fsck? >>> >>> Does ReiserFS work with FreeBSD? >> >>> From what I've read, XFS is quite good as well.... (Whether or not it >> could ever work with *BSD, I don't know) > > Apparently XFS would run better on FreeBSD than on Linux, from what > Adrian told me. This is because linux apparently channels all I/O > through 512k buffers They're not that big. IIRC 4 kB is the maximum in 2.2 and earlier kernels. They've improved things somewhat in 2.4, but it's still a mess. > whereas XFS uses larger buffers to get it's speed. FreeBSD's buffer > cache doesn't have the same limitations that Linux's does. Correct. We do limit physical I/O to 128 kB, however. That would have to be rethought to do correctly some of the things that XFS does. Greg -- See complete headers for address and phone numbers 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?20010613102058.F5486>