Date: Tue, 9 Feb 2010 09:33:48 +0000 From: krad <kraduk@googlemail.com> To: J65nko <j65nko@gmail.com> Cc: alex <alex@mailinglist.ahhyes.net>, freebsd-questions@freebsd.org Subject: Re: FreeBSD's UFS vs Ext4 Message-ID: <d36406631002090133q55f8a2fdi474b47d7d086f22b@mail.gmail.com> In-Reply-To: <19861fba1002081754v63905bbjff660fe612b195e2@mail.gmail.com> References: <4B6ED119.2060308@mailinglist.ahhyes.net> <201002080224.01343.pieter@degoeje.nl> <4B6F970F.3060909@mailinglist.ahhyes.net> <19861fba1002081754v63905bbjff660fe612b195e2@mail.gmail.com>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
On 9 February 2010 01:54, J65nko <j65nko@gmail.com> wrote: > On Mon, Feb 8, 2010 at 5:46 AM, alex <alex@mailinglist.ahhyes.net> wrote: > > > > I do suspect personally that the ext4 filesystem is the reason for the > > difference here, since ext4 has a number of features such as deferred > disk > > writes etc. Even deleting a large file off that raid array I can see a > > difference, prior to reformatting, i deleted a 190GB file off the raid, > > under UFS the delete took quite some time (well over 10 seconds), under > ext4 > > the deletion of the same size file took about 3 seconds. > > > > But what I said with ext4 being faster then the aging UFS still rings > true > > in my mind, look at the recent Phoronix benchmarks for yourself and see > (10 > > pages of benchmarks). > > > > > http://www.phoronix.com/scan.php?page=article&item=freebsd8_benchmarks&num=1 > > (skip to page 7 of the benchmarks if you want to see the I/O stuff > relating > > to disk performance) > > According to the first page they used the default configuration of all > benchmarked OS'es. > And what is the default mount option on Linux "async" > > The FreeBSD man page for mount describes this "async" option as follows: > > async All I/O to the file system should be done asynchronously. > This is a dangerous flag to set, since it does not guar- > antee that the file system structure on the disk will > remain consistent. For this reason, the async flag > should be used sparingly, and only when some data recov- > ery mechanism is present. > > > The OpenBSD man page has the following additional remark: > > The most common use of this flag is to speed up > restore(8) where it can give a factor of two speed in- > crease. > > Conclusion: you cannot compare filesystem performance, when you give > one a unfair speed advantage of what could be a factor two. > _______________________________________________ > freebsd-questions@freebsd.org mailing list > http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-questions > To unsubscribe, send any mail to " > freebsd-questions-unsubscribe@freebsd.org" > you are of course entirely correct, however one of the goals of more modern file systems eg ext4 is to make async safe to use, because of this speed up. At the end of the day faster is faster simple as. Having said that it would be nice to see a gjournaled ufs system for comparison, as well as zfs
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?d36406631002090133q55f8a2fdi474b47d7d086f22b>