FreeBSD as Server
bob at buckhorn.net
Sat Jan 14 06:43:43 PST 2006
EXT is based on the Minix file system. Ext2 was the brain child of Rémy
Card, and has had a totally different development path than UFS.
UFS was based on the Berkeley Fast File System. It dates back to the
CSRG, and the infancy of UNIX. There are a number of books by Kirk
McKusick on the subject.
There have been tons of debates about UFS vs <fill in blank> on the net
over the years. YMMV, but if you want speed and stability, my money is
on UFS2. The benchmark you referred to does not show things like
recovery time or data loss after a catastrophic failure.
I also noted that the benchmark was using an ATA133 IDE drive. Nothing
wrong with that in itself, but it has long been my experience that the
type of drive used is usually the root cause of I/O disk problem. You
can't get fast performance with slow drives.
File systems are tools, just like operating systems. One size does not
fit all. You have to find the one that will work best for you. UFS and
UFS2 have worked well for many, for a very long time. I think if you try
it, you might find you're pleasantly surprised.
> Alexander Leidinger пишет:
>> Alexander <shulik_freebsd at matrixhome.net> wrote:
>>> http://linuxgazette.net/122/TWDT.html#piszcz - there is comparation
>>> of Linux FS.
>> Since this doesn't cover the FreeBSD implementations of UFS or UFS2, this
>> doesn't say anything about the reasons why you want to use a different
>> FS on
> So. Ext2/Ext3 is only modification of UFS and UFS is modification of
> S5FS. That's why I don't think, that UFS or UFS2 work better than
> ext2/ext3. But XFS and Reiser has big advantage.
> freebsd-isp at freebsd.org mailing list
> To unsubscribe, send any mail to "freebsd-isp-unsubscribe at freebsd.org"
More information about the freebsd-isp