Subject: Re: Ext2fs supported?
To: Yasir Malik <firstname.lastname@example.org>
From: Michael <email@example.com>
Date: 07/18/2004 18:04:24
> Thanks, that worked. I updated fstab accordingly.
> I carved out the ext2fs partition so I could install Oracle 10g in
> of seeing better performance than using UFS2. However, I've noticed
> ext2fs is slower than UFS2 on some of tests I've done (diskcheck takes
> longer, removing large files takes longer, etc.). Is ext2fs supposed
> be slower on NetBSD than UFS2?
Yes, at least if you use FFS with soft updates / soft dependencies. The
rumor of ufs being slow was triggered by FreeBSD defaulting to
synchronous writing as far as I remember, in NetBSD it's always been
( especially when I compare my AIX box and the S900 - both 300MHz, 604e
vs. G3, jfs vs ffs/softdep - the AIX box wins on raw throughput because
it has wide SCSI but loses big time in file creating/deleting and
dealing with lots of (small) files )
So, if I had to choose between (U|F)FS(2) and ext2fs I'd always go for
FFS... ext3fs might be an option because it has journaling but that's
not supported by BSD so better use FFS, enable soft dependencies for
additional data safety and some speed gain. I wouldn't go for FFS2/UFS2
yet - not even the FreeBSD folks think it's ready for serious work and
in NetBSD it's still beta.