FreeBSD as Server

[Bob Martin]

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.

Bob Martin

Alexander wrote:
> 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
>> FreeBSD.
> 
> 
> 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
> http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-isp
> To unsubscribe, send any mail to "freebsd-isp-unsubscribe at freebsd.org"