Date: Tue, 12 Nov 1996 15:58:01 +0900 (JST) From: Michael Hancock <michaelh@cet.co.jp> To: Joe Greco <jgreco@brasil.moneng.mei.com> Cc: mika ruohotie <bsdcur@shadows.aeon.net>, freebsd-current@FreeBSD.ORG Subject: Re: ufs is too slow? Message-ID: <Pine.SV4.3.95.961112154926.3824A-100000@parkplace.cet.co.jp> In-Reply-To: <199611111503.JAA19277@brasil.moneng.mei.com>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
On Mon, 11 Nov 1996, Joe Greco wrote: > FFS is in general a great FS... but it is optimized for the general case. > > It is particularly poor at handling large directories or lots of writes, > and news is excellent at pounding on these qualities. NTFS uses btrees for large directories and a simple linear method for small directories. I've seen some tuning tips for SQLServer where they recommended NTFS for the db and FAT for the logs because NTFS had faster read performance but FAT had faster write performance. I agree that btree scheme would improve the large directory read performance, while a soft update scheme would improve write performance in ufs. Regards, Mike Hancock
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?Pine.SV4.3.95.961112154926.3824A-100000>