Date: 27 Oct 1999 21:25:07 +0200 From: Peter Mutsaers <peter@mutsaers.com> To: Ilia Chipitsine <ilia@cgilh.chel.su> Cc: questions@freebsd.org, hackers@freebsd.org Subject: Re: why FFS is THAT slower than EXT2 ? Message-ID: <87n1t4r4h8.fsf@muon.xs4all.nl> In-Reply-To: Ilia Chipitsine's message of "Wed, 27 Oct 1999 23:59:07 %2B0600 (ESS)" References: <Pine.BSF.4.10.9910272357290.760-100000@localhost.cgu.chel.su>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
>> "IC" == Ilia Chipitsine <ilia@cgilh.chel.su> 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
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?87n1t4r4h8.fsf>