From owner-freebsd-hackers Fri Oct 29 3:19:43 1999 Delivered-To: freebsd-hackers@freebsd.org Received: from router.ems.chel.su (router.ems.chel.su [195.54.2.222]) by hub.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 04DE315538 for ; Fri, 29 Oct 1999 03:17:56 -0700 (PDT) (envelope-from villain@villain.home.ems.chel.su) Received: (from uucp@localhost) by router.ems.chel.su (8.9.3/8.9.3/Debian/GNU) with UUCP id QAA31328 for hackers@FreeBSD.ORG; Fri, 29 Oct 1999 16:08:05 +0600 Received: by villain.home.ems.chel.su (Postfix, from userid 1000) id 78B92AA9F; Fri, 29 Oct 1999 12:24:07 +0600 (YEKST) Date: Fri, 29 Oct 1999 12:24:06 +0600 From: Aleksey I Zavilohin To: hackers@FreeBSD.ORG Subject: Re: why FFS is THAT slower than EXT2 ? Message-ID: <19991029122406.A367@villain.home.ems.chel.su> Mail-Followup-To: hackers@FreeBSD.ORG References: <19991027174454.A99169@chuggalug.clues.com> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii User-Agent: Mutt/1.0pre2i In-Reply-To: <19991027174454.A99169@chuggalug.clues.com> Organization: villain X-Operation-System: Linux 2.3.24 Sender: owner-freebsd-hackers@FreeBSD.ORG Precedence: bulk X-Loop: FreeBSD.ORG Geoff Buckingham wrote: > > I was pointing out to Chuck Youse that BSD metadata writes are also > > (mostly) asynchronous now, so if FFS is truly slower than ext2fs, there > > must be some other reason. > > > I heard talk the linux folks where using btrees to better handle large > directories. No, current implementation ext2 (and, i think, pre-ext3 too) don`t use btree for handle large directories. Btree associated with Hash Reiser in LinuxWorld 8-) and resierfs. -- "Let's show this prehistoric bitch how we do things downtown!" -- The Ghostbusters To Unsubscribe: send mail to majordomo@FreeBSD.org with "unsubscribe freebsd-hackers" in the body of the message