From owner-freebsd-stable@FreeBSD.ORG Thu Dec 15 18:35:48 2011 Return-Path: Delivered-To: freebsd-stable@freebsd.org Received: from mx1.freebsd.org (mx1.freebsd.org [IPv6:2001:4f8:fff6::34]) by hub.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 6CFC31065673 for ; Thu, 15 Dec 2011 18:35:48 +0000 (UTC) (envelope-from fjwcash@gmail.com) Received: from mail-vx0-f182.google.com (mail-vx0-f182.google.com [209.85.220.182]) by mx1.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 1DBDF8FC0A for ; Thu, 15 Dec 2011 18:35:47 +0000 (UTC) Received: by vcbfk1 with SMTP id fk1so3041137vcb.13 for ; Thu, 15 Dec 2011 10:35:47 -0800 (PST) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=gamma; h=mime-version:in-reply-to:references:date:message-id:subject:from:to :cc:content-type; bh=2AlMjn6CxxbBgoVYL7CStHaRl2qG88b4zva2K1TTroc=; b=IozSrMog/mt1j+wgGQuRVp4rgnds8/VYI9At0SDz4wIHpfLqULQUoPLI1ilruuxVce 0r3t81IdSDmasQoqkCRadSxHGWq5SxFR3NHvxsQQXGnqS4wQ5fXJYkcE21kFzvjszSA+ 4Gfle2IoCwqR2TWDlNLapfsqZ9442wwCeb4ww= MIME-Version: 1.0 Received: by 10.220.148.146 with SMTP id p18mr880503vcv.46.1323972381673; Thu, 15 Dec 2011 10:06:21 -0800 (PST) Received: by 10.220.231.10 with HTTP; Thu, 15 Dec 2011 10:06:21 -0800 (PST) In-Reply-To: <4EEA3556.7030105@zedat.fu-berlin.de> 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> <4EEA3556.7030105@zedat.fu-berlin.de> Date: Thu, 15 Dec 2011 10:06:21 -0800 Message-ID: From: Freddie Cash To: "O. Hartmann" Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8 Cc: Michael Larabel , FreeBSD Stable Mailing List , Current FreeBSD , Daniel Kalchev , Michael Ross , freebsd-performance@freebsd.org, Jeremy Chadwick Subject: Re: Benchmark (Phoronix): FreeBSD 9.0-RC2 vs. Oracle Linux 6.1 Server X-BeenThere: freebsd-stable@freebsd.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.5 Precedence: list List-Id: Production branch of FreeBSD source code List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Thu, 15 Dec 2011 18:35:48 -0000 On Thu, Dec 15, 2011 at 9:58 AM, O. Hartmann wrote: > Am 12/15/11 14:51, schrieb Daniel Kalchev: >> >> On Dec 15, 2011, at 3:25 PM, 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? >> >> >> Or perhaps, since it is "server" Linux distribution, use ZFS on Linux as well. With identical tuning on both Linux and FreeBSD. Having the same FS used by both OS will help make the comparison more sensible for FS I/O. >> >> Daniel_______________________________________________ > > Since ZFS in Linux can only be achieved via FUSE (ad far as I know), it > is legitimate to compare ZFS and ext4. It would be much more competetive > to compare Linux BTRFS and FreeBSD ZFS. There is a separate kernel module for ZFS that can be installed, giving you proper kernel-level support for ZFS on Linux. -- Freddie Cash fjwcash@gmail.com