Pavel Cahyna wrote:
> On Sat, Sep 03, 2005 at 11:54:07PM +0200, Hubert Feyrer wrote:
> 
>>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.
> 
> Bye	Pavel
> 

I am no FS hacker but i was under the impression that the smallest
writable unit is sector(512 bytes). If UFS2 adds more sector
reads/writes then sure, it would be a little slower but only noticable
if it's an scattered read/write.

How large is an inode and why does this make a difference?

-- 
Sten Daniel Sørsdal