Re: UFS filesystem size limit

[Andreas Hauser <andy@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>]

joerg wrote @ Sat, 3 Sep 2005 14:09:39 +0200:
> On Sat, Sep 03, 2005 at 11:46:57AM +0200, Michel Talon wrote:
> > As far as recovery after a crash is involved, clearly nothing beats 
> > journalling, and i have to say that performancewise, i have the 
> > impression that Linux journalled filesystems do *very* well
> > compared to FreeBSD, or at least reiserfs shines when managing a lot of 
> > small files like a news spool and xfs for streaming large files, when
> > BSD UFS performs well in the medium case.
> 
> Don't compare experimental filesystems with UFS :-)

While not having as much testing behind them as UFS, at least on Linux,
they aren't experimental filesystems anymore.

> But seriously, the
> structure of JFS and XFS is very different from UFS, e.g. the use of
> btrees for almost anything. That makes them more suitable for some
> operations, but horrible for others.

Can you name the operations where those are less suitable?
Keep in mind they don't use plain B-Trees.

> As you said, the nice thing about UFS is that it performs well in all
> cases.

It might very well be that one of the Linux FS is better in all cases
than UFS. Too bad most benchmark data available uses 5.x instead of DFly.
Certainly you can choose a better for all situations. And Linux has also
read support for ufs and ufs2, with experimental write support, so they
soon have at least an as good in any case.


Andy