From owner-freebsd-hackers Wed Oct 27 12:54:16 1999 Delivered-To: freebsd-hackers@freebsd.org Received: from smtp7.xs4all.nl (smtp7.xs4all.nl [194.109.127.50]) by hub.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 21BAD1523A; Wed, 27 Oct 1999 12:54:12 -0700 (PDT) (envelope-from plm@smtp7.xs4all.nl) Received: from localhost. (dc2-isdn1780.dial.xs4all.nl [194.109.154.244]) by smtp7.xs4all.nl (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id VAA01607; Wed, 27 Oct 1999 21:54:05 +0200 (CEST) Received: (from plm@localhost) by localhost. (8.9.3/8.9.1) id VAA03855; Wed, 27 Oct 1999 21:25:08 +0200 (MET DST) (envelope-from plm) To: Ilia Chipitsine Cc: questions@freebsd.org, hackers@freebsd.org Subject: Re: why FFS is THAT slower than EXT2 ? References: From: Peter Mutsaers Date: 27 Oct 1999 21:25:07 +0200 In-Reply-To: Ilia Chipitsine's message of "Wed, 27 Oct 1999 23:59:07 +0600 (ESS)" Message-ID: <87n1t4r4h8.fsf@muon.xs4all.nl> Lines: 28 User-Agent: Gnus/5.070097 (Pterodactyl Gnus v0.97) Emacs/20.4 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Sender: owner-freebsd-hackers@FreeBSD.ORG Precedence: bulk X-Loop: FreeBSD.ORG >> "IC" == Ilia Chipitsine writes: >> very buggy kernel module, so things were *hosed*). The >> original poster hasn't really provided enough information to >> know what is going on, and what the performance problem is. IC> in order to save space I gzip'ped output of my tests. IC> ungzipping ports tarball on FreeBSD took 28 min on Linux --- IC> about 2.5 times faster. I've measured ext2fs vs. FFS+softupdates many times (both with optimal hdparam settings and flags), and I've found the opposite (both with UDMA and with fast-SCSI2 disks). Benchmark programs (bonnie, iozone) show FFS is faster in almost all areas. Also creating directories with 1000s of emtpy files and deleting these is faster. The only exception might be untarring large tarballs. Linux makes more aggressive use of the filesystem buffer; it even swaps out quite active processes to be able to cache large amounts. The drawback is that the system as a whole tends to become quite sluggish, while BSD has a better balance between keeping active processes and filesystem-cache. -- Peter Mutsaers | Abcoude (Utrecht), | Trust me, I know peter@mutsaers.com | the Netherlands | what I'm doing. To Unsubscribe: send mail to majordomo@FreeBSD.org with "unsubscribe freebsd-hackers" in the body of the message