Date: Mon, 5 Feb 1996 13:31:51 +0100 (MET) From: Luigi Rizzo <luigi@labinfo.iet.unipi.it> To: rnordier@iafrica.com (Robert Nordier) Cc: bde@zeta.org.au, hackers@FreeBSD.ORG Subject: Re: FAT filesystem performance Message-ID: <199602051231.NAA20897@labinfo.iet.unipi.it> In-Reply-To: <199602051051.MAA04211@eac.iafrica.com> from "Robert Nordier" at Feb 5, 96 12:50:53 pm
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
> > I wonder if he thought about maximal FATs with 64K * 1.5 byte entries. > > They would barely fit on a 160K floppy :-). Pardon me, 1.5 byte entries mean by defiitiion at most 4K entries, i.e. 12K total per two FATs. Fits nicely on a disk! > I'd go along with that: and certainly not the msdosfs at the expense of > other fs-es. One thing they did find with the MS-DOS LRU scheme was that > FAT sectors tended to "un-cache" too readily. Different prioritization > could resolve that. All the above is correct, but keep in mind that it depends a lot on how many BUFFERS=xxx you declare in your config files. And this is often a small number, which explains the poor performance of the cache. Luigi ==================================================================== Luigi Rizzo Dip. di Ingegneria dell'Informazione email: luigi@iet.unipi.it Universita' di Pisa tel: +39-50-568533 via Diotisalvi 2, 56126 PISA (Italy) fax: +39-50-568522 http://www.iet.unipi.it/~luigi/ ====================================================================
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?199602051231.NAA20897>