Date: Mon, 23 Jul 2001 18:27:05 -0700 From: "Chad R. Larson" <chad@DCFinc.com> To: Sung Nae Cho <sucho2@quasar.phys.vt.edu> Cc: freebsd-stable@FreeBSD.ORG Subject: Re: Softupdate, is it better than journaling file system? Message-ID: <20010723182705.A27101@freeway.dcfinc.com> In-Reply-To: <Pine.LNX.4.33.0107232038230.17179-100000@quasar.phys.vt.edu>; from sucho2@quasar.phys.vt.edu on Mon, Jul 23, 2001 at 08:43:13PM -0400 References: <Pine.LNX.4.33.0107232038230.17179-100000@quasar.phys.vt.edu>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
On Mon, Jul 23, 2001 at 08:43:13PM -0400, Sung Nae Cho wrote: > I was wondering if there is a real perferomance comparison between > softupdates and journaling file systems available for Linux > systems. One thing I still don't like about FreeBSD is the file > (copying, deleting, extracting... etc) system performance. Linux > seems to be much faster in (copying, deleting, extracting.....) > files than FreeBSD even with "async" option enabled in fstab. How > good is softupdates compared to those already maturing journaling > file systems available to Linux? There have been several lengthy discussions on this topic lately. Perhaps you'd like to check the mailing list archives. In a nutshell, softupdates on FreeBSD gives very near the same performance as an async mount, and gives you =much= better filesystem security. How that compares to various Linux filesystems, I don't really know. Nor do I really care. -crl -- Chad R. Larson (CRL15) 602-953-1392 Brother, can you paradigm? chad@dcfinc.com chad@larsons.org larson1@home.com DCF, Inc. - 14623 North 49th Place, Scottsdale, Arizona 85254-2207 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?20010723182705.A27101>