From owner-freebsd-current@FreeBSD.ORG Thu Dec 15 14:44:40 2011 Return-Path: Delivered-To: freebsd-current@freebsd.org Received: from mx1.freebsd.org (mx1.freebsd.org [IPv6:2001:4f8:fff6::34]) by hub.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 87A0C1065677; Thu, 15 Dec 2011 14:44:40 +0000 (UTC) (envelope-from sem@FreeBSD.org) Received: from mail.ciam.ru (mail.ciam.ru [91.209.218.18]) by mx1.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 315948FC0C; Thu, 15 Dec 2011 14:44:40 +0000 (UTC) Received: from dhcp170-160-red.yandex.net ([95.108.170.160] helo=dhcp170-205-red.yandex.net) by mail.ciam.ru with esmtpa (Exim 4.x) id 1RbCGG-0004u8-IB; Thu, 15 Dec 2011 17:26:16 +0300 Message-ID: <4EEA0388.7010605@FreeBSD.org> Date: Thu, 15 Dec 2011 18:26:16 +0400 From: Sergey Matveychuk User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows NT 6.1; WOW64; rv:8.0) Gecko/20111105 Thunderbird/8.0 MIME-Version: 1.0 To: Michael Larabel References: <4EE1EAFE.3070408@m5p.com> <4EE2AE64.9060802@m5p.com> <4EE88343.2050302@m5p.com> <4EE933C6.4020209@zedat.fu-berlin.de> <20111215024249.GA13557@icarus.home.lan> <4EE9A2A0.80607@zedat.fu-berlin.de> <4EE9C79B.7080607@phoronix.com> <4EE9F546.6060503@freebsd.org> <4EE9F7D2.4050607@phoronix.com> In-Reply-To: <4EE9F7D2.4050607@phoronix.com> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit Cc: FreeBSD Stable Mailing List , Current FreeBSD , Michael Ross , freebsd-performance@freebsd.org, "O. Hartmann" , Jeremy Chadwick Subject: Re: Benchmark (Phoronix): FreeBSD 9.0-RC2 vs. Oracle Linux 6.1 Server X-BeenThere: freebsd-current@freebsd.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.5 Precedence: list List-Id: Discussions about the use of FreeBSD-current List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Thu, 15 Dec 2011 14:44:40 -0000 15.12.2011 17:36, Michael Larabel пишет: > On 12/15/2011 07:25 AM, Stefan Esser wrote: >> Am 15.12.2011 11:10, schrieb Michael Larabel: >>> No, the same hardware was used for each OS. >>> >>> In terms of the software, the stock software stack for each OS was used. >> Just curious: Why did you choose ZFS on FreeBSD, while UFS2 (with >> journaling enabled) should be an obvious choice since it is more similar >> in concept to ext4 and since that is what most FreeBSD users will use >> with FreeBSD? > > I was running some ZFS vs. UFS tests as well and this happened to have > ZFS on when I was running some other tests. > Can we look at the tests? My opinion is ZFS without tuning is much slower than UFS2.