On 10/26/05, Alexander Leidinger <Alexander_at_leidinger.net> wrote: > I haven't read the entire thread, but by looking at this I assume there's > another FS than NTFS involved. Benchmarking with NTFS (or MSDOSFS) as the > underlying FS doesn't make sense (unless you want to measure the performance > of NTFS or MSDOSFS), since it's slow (for NTFS you should be happy to at > least be able to read something, there's no open documentation about it > available). > > So I suggest you try with a good FS (ufs 1 or 2) only and don't bother about > NTFS, to make sure the FS isn't the bottleneck. > > Bye, > Alexander. Your right, you didn't read the entire thread :D My first test was with ufs. I just popped an IDE disk into the machine to have means to compare. /dev/da0s1a on / (ufs, local) devfs on /dev (devfs, local) /dev/da0s1e on /tmp (ufs, local, soft-updates) /dev/da0s1f on /usr (ufs, local, soft-updates) /dev/da0s1d on /var (ufs, local, soft-updates) /dev/amrd0s1c on /storage (ufs, local, soft-updates) /dev/ad0s1 on /mnt/temp (ntfs, local) -- Joao BarrosReceived on Wed Oct 26 2005 - 13:09:36 UTC
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.4.0 : Wed May 19 2021 - 11:38:46 UTC