Date: Mon, 23 Jul 2001 18:44:00 -0700 (PDT) From: Tom <tom@uniserve.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: <Pine.BSF.4.10.10107231840210.22057-100000@athena.uniserve.ca> In-Reply-To: <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, 23 Jul 2001, Sung Nae Cho wrote: > Hi, > > 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? Journalling file systems by their nature, are very disk intensive. Updates go to the journal first, and are then written to the disk. Quite often the journal becomes a bottleneck. Very often metadata updates are slower on journalled file systems than on non-journalled systems. Async mounts, and softupdate mounts (softupdate is safer) should be similar performance to Linux, but make sure all your disk options are turned on too. Disk write-cache and other things can give you a lot more performance, at the risk of safety. Neither async mounts, or softupdates are journalled filesystems. As others have mentioned, this is old news. Tom 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?Pine.BSF.4.10.10107231840210.22057-100000>