Return to BSD News archive
Newsgroups: comp.unix.bsd.freebsd.misc,comp.os.linux.development.system Path: euryale.cc.adfa.oz.au!newshost.anu.edu.au!harbinger.cc.monash.edu.au!nntp.coast.net!news.sprintlink.net!news1!not-for-mail From: root@dyson.iquest.net (John S. Dyson) Subject: Re: The better (more suitable)Unix?? FreeBSD or Linux X-Nntp-Posting-Host: dyson.iquest.net Message-ID: <4f27sc$13a@dyson.iquest.net> Sender: news@iquest.net (News Admin) Organization: John S. Dyson's home machine References: <4er9hp$5ng@orb.direct.ca> <311250C2.2781E494@public.uni-hamburg.de> <strenDM7Gr4.Cn2@netcom.com> Date: Sun, 4 Feb 1996 12:13:00 GMT Lines: 27 Xref: euryale.cc.adfa.oz.au comp.unix.bsd.freebsd.misc:13666 comp.os.linux.development.system:17207 In article <strenDM7Gr4.Cn2@netcom.com>, Sam Trenholme <stren@netcom.com> wrote: >[Since we are comparing Linux and FreeBSD, in hopefully a constructive way, > I have posted this to both a Linux and a FreeBSD newsgroup] > >>On http://plastique.stanford.edu/ you'll find an extensive >>work comparing Linux(1.2.8), FreeBSD 2.05, and Solaris 2.4. >> >>The jist is: >>- Linux has best FileSystem-Performance (because it's doing FS-Updates >> asychronously) > >Hmmm.... I remeber a long thread where people were arguing this-- and I >get the sense that FFS was faster than Ext2Fs. > FFS on FreeBSD is signficantly faster on sequential transfers than EXT2FS on Linux. FFS on FreeBSD does synchronous meta-data updates conservatively, while EXT2FS on Linux is more aggressive about write-behind caching of meta-data (therefore the meta-data in memory is out-of-sync for a longer time with meta-data on disk.) The Linux approach is faster for bulk directory operations, but -current FreeBSD does a bit to mitigate the difference by supporting an async option for mounts. FreeBSD IS faster for copying large files (even the most recent Linux vs. most recent FreeBSD.) John Dyson dyson@freebsd.org