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.
--
Ben Rosengart
UNIX Systems Engineer, Skunk Group
StarMedia Network, Inc.
To Unsubscribe: send mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
with "unsubscribe freebsd-hackers" in the body of the message
