Subject: Re: Comparison of OS for PC's
To: None <current-users@NetBSD.ORG>
From: Kenneth Stailey <email@example.com>
Date: 08/27/1995 14:19:06
john> so qualitatively, what would you say that these benchmarks show that
john> netbsd lacks? What I picked up was that the page allocation scheme was
john> perhaps not the best in the world and that netbsd seemed to overrun the
john> data cache.
david> Unified buffer & VM cache, and some way around the problem of sync
david> writes slowing down the disk. (NT's metadata journalling is better
david> at this, and shouldn't corrupt the disk no matter when you hit
david> the power switch (reportedly) (allegedly) (or so its said :)
LFS gives you much better performance time for file creates and removes.
These are the classic UFS metadata performance-poor operations.
Is anyone actively pursuing working LFS for -current?