http://www.osnews.com/story/3334/UFS2_Now_the_Default_Creation_Type_on_FreeBSD_5_0-CURRENT Exploring the Future of Computing en-us Copyright 2001-2009, David Adams adam+nospam@osnews.com Mon, 09 Nov 2009 23:23:49 GMT http://www.osnews.com/images/osnews.gif http://www.osnews.com http://osnews.com/thread? http://osnews.com/thread? 5.0 is getting there! Can't wait to get my mits on 5.1-RELEASE though ;o) Good work FreeBSD-team! Mon, 21 Apr 2003 13:25:00 GMT donotreply@osnews.com (Anonymous) Comments http://osnews.com/thread? http://osnews.com/thread? As UFS1 was the default, I'm sure many have installed 5 believing without a second thought that UFS2 would be used on all of their filesystems. These people are likely to notice an unexpected performance hit when 5.1 comes along with UFS2 as default. Mon, 21 Apr 2003 13:38:00 GMT donotreply@osnews.com (Anonymous) Comments http://osnews.com/thread? http://osnews.com/thread? "an unexpected performance hit when 5.1 comes along with UFS2 as default"

perfomance hit == perfomance loss

Claim to back up your claim that UFS2 is slower than UFS1 ? Mon, 21 Apr 2003 14:30:00 GMT donotreply@osnews.com (Anonymous) Comments http://osnews.com/thread? http://osnews.com/thread? ...can someone please comment on the differences between the two?

Thanks,

--
3lixyqueue Mon, 21 Apr 2003 15:49:00 GMT donotreply@osnews.com (Anonymous) Comments http://osnews.com/thread? http://osnews.com/thread? As far as I know, UFS1 and UFS2 are similar. However, UFS2 was designed with ACLs and extended attributes in mind while this support for UFS1 was somehow bolted on as an afterthought. The main performance gains of UFS2 will be for those that use ACLs (and extended attributes).

This is especially important for Samba users since windows needs both ACLs and extended attributes. Samba has always had some problems with things like hidden files and what not (before ACL support).

Anyways, I'm not a filesystem guru, so if someone else would like to give better description it'd be appreciated. Mon, 21 Apr 2003 16:02:00 GMT donotreply@osnews.com (Anonymous) Comments http://osnews.com/thread? http://osnews.com/thread? As UFS1 was the default, I'm sure many have installed 5 believing without a second thought that UFS2 would be used on all of their filesystems. These people are likely to notice an unexpected performance hit when 5.1 comes along with UFS2 as default.

Or they could simply reinstall their systems again...

There aren't that many performance characteristics which are different between UFS1 and 2. It's largely a matter of maximum filesystem size and extended attributes. Mon, 21 Apr 2003 18:40:00 GMT donotreply@osnews.com (Anonymous) Comments http://osnews.com/thread? http://osnews.com/thread? Hmm... When I installed 5.0-RELEASE a couple days ago, it was noted in the installer that I should not choose UFS2 unless I had a 64-bit machine, so I chose UFS1 (the default). Was the installer's warning mistaken? Mon, 21 Apr 2003 21:03:00 GMT donotreply@osnews.com (Anonymous) Comments http://osnews.com/thread? http://osnews.com/thread? But grub does not recognize UFS2 yet. Fans should be going for default bootmgr for dualbooting. Mon, 21 Apr 2003 21:17:00 GMT donotreply@osnews.com (Anonymous) Comments