G
giahung1997
Guest
I'm not dare to use the word "sucks", afraid I will be attacked. Today I reinstalled MXLinux17 alongside FreeBSD and I found it's still supports install on EXT2 despite the default ones is EXT4. The installation process straighforwart as normal and now I'm running MX on EXT2, posting this thread. My knowledge is limited, I say no the bendmark results because I don't understand these value, but in real life daily desktop usage EXT2 on MX only slower than EXT4 about 30%, it's too fast compared to UFS on FreeBSD. For example, when extract heavy archive like openjdk8-docs on MX and llvm40 on FreeBSD, EXT2 is much better. I think UFS should be comparable to EXT4, but it's not
Same old dying HDD I keep to test how long it could live. I don't think EXT2 is better than UFS but the caching mechanic on Linux is much better than FreeBSD, forgive me if I'm wrong. I see via Conky how it use RAM and release it immediately after the copy is done just too impressive. The caching made a slow USB2.0 pendrive formated with FAT32 just too fast compared on Windows when copying many small files (different device, not the HDD I'm refering to the previous paragraph).
Same old dying HDD I keep to test how long it could live. I don't think EXT2 is better than UFS but the caching mechanic on Linux is much better than FreeBSD, forgive me if I'm wrong. I see via Conky how it use RAM and release it immediately after the copy is done just too impressive. The caching made a slow USB2.0 pendrive formated with FAT32 just too fast compared on Windows when copying many small files (different device, not the HDD I'm refering to the previous paragraph).