Date: Mon, 27 Jan 1997 00:52:53 -0800 From: dicen <dicen@hooked.net> To: freebsd-hackers@freebsd.org Subject: Performance of ufs vs. ext2. Message-ID: <32EC6CE5.64E60DE1@hooked.net> References: <199701270553.QAA25341@godzilla.zeta.org.au>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
Bruce Evans wrote: > > >> Have other people tested ufs vs. ext2? The only docs I could find where > >> ... > >The performance that I have measured (sequential -- IOZONE) is that > >FreeBSD is faster in both read/write. However, our metadata performance > >is slower (filecreates/deletes.) With -async, our metadata is still > >slower, but not by orders of magnitude. FreeBSD's cache perf is much > >faster (by factors of 3-4.) Much of it is due to the default block > >size (8K vs. 1K.) But the fragment size of an 8K UFS filesystem is > >the *same* as a 1K ext2fs. > > In my tests, ext2fs is fastest for huge sequential i/o's when the block > sizes are closer (8K vs 4K), but there was only a small difference (less > than 10%) between the best and worst cases (best: ext2fs under FreeBSD, > next: ext2fs under Linux, worst: ext2fs under Linux) except for rewrite, > which was 66% faster under Linux than under FreeBSD. Cache performance > also catches up (46MB/sec for FreeBSD-current-last-November, 41MB/sec > for Linux-2.0.20). A 4K fragment size wastes space probably wastes time > in most cases. > > Bruce Okay cool some real numbers. When you speak of "rewrite" are you talking about the creation and deletion of files (Metadata)? There seams to be a significant speed difference between the creation and deletion of files on linux ext2 vs. Freebsd ufs. Linux ext2 is way faster. I suppose I could just run ext2 under FreeBSD right? It sure would make a "make world" faster. You know if someone were to setup a news server it would seam to make more sence to use ext2.
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?32EC6CE5.64E60DE1>