Date: Wed, 27 Oct 1999 12:35:17 -0400 (EDT) From: Don <don@calis.blacksun.org> To: Ben Rosengart <ben@skunk.org> Cc: Chuck Youse <cyouse@paradox.nexuslabs.com>, Ilia Chipitsine <ilia@cgilh.chel.su>, questions@FreeBSD.ORG, hackers@FreeBSD.ORG Subject: Re: why FFS is THAT slower than EXT2 ? Message-ID: <Pine.BSF.4.05.9910271234060.35310-100000@calis.blacksun.org> In-Reply-To: <Pine.BSF.4.10.9910271216060.94542-100000@penelope.skunk.org>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
There is actually a discussion beginning on freebsd-fs about the possibilty to starting a journaled file system project. Perhaps the speed issues (as well as the ACL's issues) could be discussed there? -don On Wed, 27 Oct 1999, Ben Rosengart wrote: > On Wed, 27 Oct 1999, Chuck Youse wrote: > > > One of the biggest reasons for the difference: FreeBSD, by default, > > performs _synchronous_ metadata updates, and Linux performs asynchronous > > metadata updates. > > > > It's definitely a bit slower, but the payoff is in reliability. I have > > seen more than one [production!] Linux machine completely trash its > > filesystems because the implementors decided that their "NT-killer" must > > have good performance at the expense of serious, production-quality > > reliability. > > Read the post again -- they were using soft updates. To Unsubscribe: send mail to majordomo@FreeBSD.org with "unsubscribe freebsd-questions" in the body of the message
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?Pine.BSF.4.05.9910271234060.35310-100000>