On Wed, Oct 27, 1999 at 12:44:42PM -0400, Ben Rosengart wrote:
> On Wed, 27 Oct 1999, Chuck Robey wrote:
>
> > On Wed, 27 Oct 1999, Ben Rosengart wrote:
> >
> > > On Wed, 27 Oct 1999, Chuck Youse wrote:
> > >
> > > > 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.
> > >
> > > Read the post again -- they were using soft updates.
> >
> > Why is that important? Soft updates is still far better than an async
> > filesystem. Have you lost files in panics? I haven't.
>
> What panics? I've been running -stable and it's been living up to the
> name.
>
> 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.
--
GeoffB
To Unsubscribe: send mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
with "unsubscribe freebsd-hackers" in the body of the message
