From owner-freebsd-fs@FreeBSD.ORG Sat Jan 8 23:35:21 2011 Return-Path: Delivered-To: freebsd-fs@freebsd.org Received: from mx1.freebsd.org (mx1.freebsd.org [IPv6:2001:4f8:fff6::34]) by hub.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 71441106566B for ; Sat, 8 Jan 2011 23:35:20 +0000 (UTC) (envelope-from freebsd-fs@m.gmane.org) Received: from lo.gmane.org (lo.gmane.org [80.91.229.12]) by mx1.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 2CED68FC08 for ; Sat, 8 Jan 2011 23:35:19 +0000 (UTC) Received: from list by lo.gmane.org with local (Exim 4.69) (envelope-from ) id 1PbiJa-0007sW-PC for freebsd-fs@freebsd.org; Sun, 09 Jan 2011 00:35:18 +0100 Received: from cpe-188-129-84-81.dynamic.amis.hr ([188.129.84.81]) by main.gmane.org with esmtp (Gmexim 0.1 (Debian)) id 1AlnuQ-0007hv-00 for ; Sun, 09 Jan 2011 00:35:18 +0100 Received: from ivoras by cpe-188-129-84-81.dynamic.amis.hr with local (Gmexim 0.1 (Debian)) id 1AlnuQ-0007hv-00 for ; Sun, 09 Jan 2011 00:35:18 +0100 X-Injected-Via-Gmane: http://gmane.org/ To: freebsd-fs@freebsd.org From: Ivan Voras Date: Sun, 09 Jan 2011 00:35:07 +0100 Lines: 13 Message-ID: Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Complaints-To: usenet@dough.gmane.org X-Gmane-NNTP-Posting-Host: cpe-188-129-84-81.dynamic.amis.hr User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; U; FreeBSD amd64; en-US; rv:1.9.2.12) Gecko/20101102 Thunderbird/3.1.6 Subject: Another Phoronix article X-BeenThere: freebsd-fs@freebsd.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.5 Precedence: list List-Id: Filesystems List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Sat, 08 Jan 2011 23:35:21 -0000 Phoronix is not exactly the epitome of correct benchmarking but it appears that they've at least recently found out about the existence of error bars. :) Anyway, here's another article comparing file systems: Dragonfly UFS, HAMMER, FreeBSD UFS, ZFS and Linux ext3, ext4, btrfs: http://goo.gl/YA2VK In summary: very varied results, some are expected (low parallel write small IOPS for FreeBSD), some are not (apparently the BSDs have a monopoly on high-performance gzip :) ). But overall, pretty good relative results for FreeBSD, better than earlier.