Messages in this thread |  | | From | (Alexander Sanda) | Subject | Re: performance of vfat versus ext2? | Date | Fri, 03 Jan 1997 02:13:39 GMT |
| |
In article <9701011920.AA23162@gnu.sdsp.mc.xerox.com>, "Marty Leisner" <leisner@sdsp.mc.xerox.com> wrote:
>For msdos mounts I get: >Writing the 25 Megabyte file, 'iozone.tmp'...12.990000 seconds >Reading the file...353.160000 seconds > >IOZONE performance measurements: > 2018044 bytes/second for writing the file > 74228 bytes/second for reading the file > > >Any hypothesis? I did some performance studies in 1.* and didn't recall seeing >this.
Hm, I have also noticed very low performance when reading from fat/vfat. For example, midnight commander takes a very long time (about 10-20 seconds) to read a vfat directory with approx. 110 MB in 1400 files. I don't think, it's midnight commanders fault, because it is way faster on ext2 partitions. Also, FAT isn't that slow. Norton Commander (version 1.0 for win) takes about 1 - 2 seconds for the same job under NT.
And, yes you're right. If I remember correctly, 1.2.x was much faster on fat/vfat partitions.
BTW: I'am running 2.1.17. -- # /AS/ # # http://members.ping.at/alexa/ God save the screen ! #
|  |