Date: Wed, 23 May 2001 08:45:51 -0400 (EDT) From: "Andresen,Jason R." <jandrese@mitre.org> To: "Daniel C. Sobral" <dcs@newsguy.com> Cc: <freebsd-hackers@FreeBSD.ORG> Subject: Re: technical comparison Message-ID: <20010523083213.T87127-100000@nausicaa.mitre.org> In-Reply-To: <3B0B089A.AA97F518@newsguy.com>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
On Tue, 22 May 2001, Daniel C. Sobral wrote: > Jason Andresen wrote: > > > > Results: > > ufs+softupdates is a little slower than ext2fs+wc for low numbers of > > files, but scales better. I wish I had a Reiserfs partition to > > test with. > > Ext2fs is a non-contender. > > Note, though, that there is some very recent perfomance improvement on > very large directories known as dirpref (what changed, actually, was > dirpref's algorithm). This is NOT present on 4.3-RELEASE, though it > _might_ have since been committed to stable. The new dirpref code is mostly just a performance tweak. We can't compete with ReiserFS on large directories without a major improvement to the code, assuming the previous post was true and ReiserFS has some log time components where ufs has linear time components. Note that the improvement from using the new dirpref code is about 12%, which isn't bad, but still doesn't put us in the right ballpark. 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?20010523083213.T87127-100000>