Date: Wed, 27 Oct 1999 11:53:35 -0700 From: Mike Smith <mike@smith.net.au> To: Ilia Chipitsine <ilia@cgilh.chel.su> Cc: David Scheidt <dscheidt@enteract.com>, Chuck Robey <chuckr@picnic.mat.net>, Ben Rosengart <ben@skunk.org>, Chuck Youse <cyouse@paradox.nexuslabs.com>, questions@FreeBSD.ORG, hackers@FreeBSD.ORG Subject: Re: why FFS is THAT slower than EXT2 ? Message-ID: <199910271853.LAA00409@dingo.cdrom.com> In-Reply-To: Your message of "Wed, 27 Oct 1999 23:59:07 %2B0600." <Pine.BSF.4.10.9910272357290.760-100000@localhost.cgu.chel.su>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
> in order to save space I gzip'ped output of my tests. > ungzipping ports tarball on FreeBSD took 28 min > on Linux --- about 2.5 times faster. This is something we already know, and it's not the sort of test that you should ever headline as "why is FFS so much slower"? Creation of massive directory tree hierarchies under FFS is more expensive because of the way that FFS tries to keep directories spread out, in order to later have a better chance of putting files close to their parent directories. When you create a massive and mostly empty tree like the ports tree, you pay for this optimisation. The justification for this behaviour is that you only create the tree once, but you may use it for years afterwards. Thus, claiming that "FFS is slower" is both short-sighted and incorrect. If you're going to bother to publicise the results of your tests, you could try actually conducting some meaningful tests first. -- \\ Give a man a fish, and you feed him for a day. \\ Mike Smith \\ Tell him he should learn how to fish himself, \\ msmith@freebsd.org \\ and he'll hate you for a lifetime. \\ msmith@cdrom.com 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?199910271853.LAA00409>