From owner-freebsd-hackers  Sun Jan 26 16:51:16 1997
Return-Path: <owner-hackers>
Received: (from root@localhost)
          by freefall.freebsd.org (8.8.5/8.8.5) id QAA08012
          for hackers-outgoing; Sun, 26 Jan 1997 16:51:16 -0800 (PST)
Received: from dyson.iquest.net (dyson.iquest.net [198.70.144.127])
          by freefall.freebsd.org (8.8.5/8.8.5) with ESMTP id QAA08002
          for <freebsd-hackers@freebsd.org>; Sun, 26 Jan 1997 16:51:13 -0800 (PST)
Received: (from root@localhost) by dyson.iquest.net (8.8.4/8.6.9) id TAA20481; Sun, 26 Jan 1997 19:51:03 -0500 (EST)
From: "John S. Dyson" <toor@dyson.iquest.net>
Message-Id: <199701270051.TAA20481@dyson.iquest.net>
Subject: Re: What is the default for async in /etc/fstab?
To: dicen@hooked.net (RHS Linux User)
Date: Sun, 26 Jan 1997 19:51:03 -0500 (EST)
Cc: freebsd-hackers@freebsd.org
In-Reply-To: <32EBC635.4F86F1D5@hooked.net> from "RHS Linux User" at Jan 26, 97 01:01:41 pm
X-Mailer: ELM [version 2.4 PL24 ME8]
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Sender: owner-hackers@freebsd.org
X-Loop: FreeBSD.org
Precedence: bulk

> 
> Have other people tested ufs vs. ext2? The only docs I could find where
> for ext2. A comparison with FreeBSD 2.0 I think, although it could have
> been older. This was for some old Linux 1.xx. 
> 
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.

Both are very fast though.

John