On Sat, Apr 29, 2000 at 11:37:34AM +0900, GOTO Masanori wrote:
> I don't know quantitative comparison between FreeBSD FFS
> and Ext2. However, both FFS and ext2 have similar
> structures, so I guess both performance are nice...
UFS is a lot slower than ext2 because ext2 does async meta data updates. This
has been the cause of much discussion, with the UFS crowd (I'm one of them,
I doubled UFS performance at Sun) claiming that because UFS is "safe" and
ext2 is "unsafe". That claim is where I part ways with the UFS crowd, I've
been using ext2 for years, have survived many crashes, and I don't see any
difference in the frequency of fsck problems.
And the difference in performance is HUGE. A file create in UFS is about
12,000 usecs. A create in in ext2 is about 100 usecs.
--
---
Larry McVoy [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://www.bitmover.com/lm
