Relay-Version: version B 2.10 5/3/83; site utzoo.UUCP Path: utzoo!utgpu!water!watmath!clyde!cbosgd!mandrill!hal!ncoast!allbery From: allbery@ncoast.UUCP Newsgroups: comp.unix.questions Subject: Re: BSD Fast File System a Flop? Message-ID: <4535@ncoast.UUCP> Date: Thu, 17-Sep-87 17:57:03 EDT Article-I.D.: ncoast.4535 Posted: Thu Sep 17 17:57:03 1987 Date-Received: Sat, 19-Sep-87 16:23:29 EDT References: <5027@jade.BERKELEY.EDU> <670@pyrnj.uucp> Reply-To: allbery@ncoast.UUCP (Brandon Allbery) Followup-To: comp.unix.questions Organization: Cleveland Public Access UN*X, Cleveland, Oh Lines: 27 As quoted from <670@pyrnj.uucp> by romain@pyrnj.uucp (Romain Kang): +--------------- | It might be an interesting experiment to try running today's Sun | workstations with a System V filesystem instead of FFS under the vnode | layer. These and many other new Unix boxes are typically several times | faster than the old-style VAX CPUs, but may have fairly slow disks and | perhaps dumber disk controllers. In this case, disk layout becomes | more important -- if you were a fast CPU, waiting for the disk might be | like waiting for the second hand on a wall clock to reach the next | quarter-minute mark. You might get around this with a large buffer | cache. In fact, I believe some System V implementations recommend | allocating as much as 50% of main memory to cache. +--------------- It might be instructive for me to point out that Altos sells what they call the BoosterPak -- which is basically a version of Xenix 3 that has the Berkeley Fast File System. I haven't noticed much of a difference between an 886 with the BoosterPak and one without... ...except when the disk gets full... ;-) -- Brandon S. Allbery, moderator of comp.sources.misc {{harvard,mit-eddie}!necntc,well!hoptoad,sun!mandrill!hal}!ncoast!allbery ARPA: necntc!ncoast!allbery@harvard.harvard.edu Fido: 157/502 MCI: BALLBERY <> All opinions in this message are random characters produced when my cat jumped (-: up onto the keyboard of my PC. :-)