On Sat, 3 Sep 2005, Pavel Cahyna wrote:
   >>> Also using UFS1 instead of UFS2 (if you don't want to use
   >>> LFS) might help.
   >
   > Because UFS2 has inodes twice as large than UFS1 IIRC, so it means more
   > data going to/from disks and more buffer space wasted. But I never
   > actually did a performance comparison.
   
   Let us know when you did. I'm sure the 4 bytes per file have a huge 
   performance impact.


this is not 64 bit ino_t.  this is 256 bytes -> 512 bytes IIRC.