Date: Thu, 14 Nov 1996 16:01:34 +0100 (MET) From: Andreas Klemm <andreas@klemm.gtn.com> To: Mark Mayo <mark@quickweb.com> Cc: Terry Lambert <terry@lambert.org>, Ollivier Robert <roberto@keltia.freenix.fr>, freebsd-current@FreeBSD.org Subject: Re: ufs is too slow? Message-ID: <Pine.BSF.3.95.961114155500.1346B-100000@klemm.gtn.com> In-Reply-To: <Pine.BSF.3.94.961111194152.15306A-100000@vinyl.quickweb.com>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
On Mon, 11 Nov 1996, Mark Mayo wrote: > Just curious, how would a NTFS perform in this scenario? As far as I > remember, NTFS allows btree directory structures. Also NTFS allows per > file compression, and "live" partition extension (making a logical drive > spread across multiple disks, or extending the size of a logical partition > on the current disk). One exception, the logical drive must not be a system partition (boot partition or a swapfile on it). You are only allowed to extend upto 32 _pure data_ volumes. > It seems to me that NTFS has quite a bit of > functionality, but how does it perform compared to UFS - under the > 'general' and extreme cases (such as news). BTW: one undocumented feature of NTFS is, that it fragments ! Our developers got a tool from a ftp site, that reported severe fragmentation. ewwwwww! That explained the loss of filesystem performance over some weeks... BTW, who would love to write additionally an fsck for it ?! When trying to implement NTFS, don't forget this ;) If I had to choose between ufs and NTFS, I'd choose UFS ;) I would use NTFS only for playing ;) -- andreas@klemm.gtn.com /\/\___ Wiechers & Partner Datentechnik GmbH Andreas Klemm ___/\/\/ Support Unix -- andreas.klemm@wup.de pgp p-key http://www-swiss.ai.mit.edu/~bal/pks-toplev.html >>> powered by <<< ftp://sunsite.unc.edu/pub/Linux/system/Printing/aps-491.tgz >>> FreeBSD <<<
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?Pine.BSF.3.95.961114155500.1346B-100000>