One of the biggest reasons for the difference: FreeBSD, by default,
performs _synchronous_ metadata updates, and Linux performs asynchronous
metadata updates.
It's definitely a bit slower, but the payoff is in reliability. I have
seen more than one [production!] Linux machine completely trash its
filesystems because the implementors decided that their "NT-killer" must
have good performance at the expense of serious, production-quality
reliability.
Chuck
On Wed, 27 Oct 1999, Ilia Chipitsine wrote:
> -----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
>
> Well, guys, listen :-)
>
> I and my friends mentioned that "FreeBSD + ffs" is often slower
> (THAT slower) than "Linux + ext2" for number of tasks:
> rm, find, tar ... for IDE & SCSI disks.
>
> I didn't try things like "FreeBSD + ext2" or "Linux + ffs".
>
> I attached here results of the test I performed. For test I "gunzip"ped
> FreeBSD ports collection, in attachment You can find "scripted" output of
> "# time sh install.sh" for both systems. Also there are "dmesg" outputs.
>
> machine was THE SAME: read "dmesg",
>
> FreeBSD-3.3 + softupdates + "# tunefs -o time" + "flags 0xb0ffb0ff"
> (kernel was compiled with "-O2")
> Linux - RedHat-6.0 with out_of_box_kernel, just
> "# hdparm -d 1 -c 3 -m 16 /dev/hda", read "hdparm" output...
>
> even as non-native English speaker I know few other other words which
> begin with "f" :-)
> is "fast" the propriate one for "ffs" ?
>
> Regards, (Наилучшие пожелания)
>
> Ilia Chipitsine (Илья Шипицин)
>
> -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
> Version: 2.6.3ia
> Charset: noconv
>
> iQB1AwUBOBcbQuRxlWKN2EXhAQHHqgL+K+2O8gkv1kYs8AhsqbMsIFTG5u7gfzcT
> oqqhKlTUlTtaKtAl6g/CnKsPpxfh0CaMEmQC+5bzqSa4MnZcyHwiAWlrNLRlU08A
> DfYJQRGa/6S5OiaJVYnsAuKnbr6tLZGZ
> =YWer
> -----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
>
To Unsubscribe: send mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
with "unsubscribe freebsd-hackers" in the body of the message
