Date: Thu, 15 Dec 2011 18:58:46 +0100 From: "O. Hartmann" <ohartman@zedat.fu-berlin.de> To: Daniel Kalchev <daniel@digsys.bg> Cc: Michael Larabel <michael.larabel@phoronix.com>, FreeBSD Stable Mailing List <freebsd-stable@freebsd.org>, Current FreeBSD <freebsd-current@freebsd.org>, Michael Ross <gmx@ross.cx>, freebsd-performance@freebsd.org, Jeremy Chadwick <freebsd@jdc.parodius.com> Subject: Re: Benchmark (Phoronix): FreeBSD 9.0-RC2 vs. Oracle Linux 6.1 Server Message-ID: <4EEA3556.7030105@zedat.fu-berlin.de> In-Reply-To: <E76CA6AF-4109-4627-AF9B-D1C7C4C6D4E2@digsys.bg> References: <4EE1EAFE.3070408@m5p.com> <CAJ-FndDniGH8QoT=kUxOQ%2BzdVhWF0Z0NKLU0PGS-Gt=BK6noWw@mail.gmail.com> <4EE2AE64.9060802@m5p.com> <4EE88343.2050302@m5p.com> <CAFHbX1%2B5PttyZuNnYot8emTn_AWkABdJCvnpo5rcRxVXj0ypJA@mail.gmail.com> <4EE933C6.4020209@zedat.fu-berlin.de> <CAPjTQNEJDE17TLH-mDrG_-_Qa9R5N3mSeXSYYWtqz_DFidzYQw@mail.gmail.com> <20111215024249.GA13557@icarus.home.lan> <4EE9A2A0.80607@zedat.fu-berlin.de> <op.v6iv3qe5g7njmm@michael-think> <4EE9C79B.7080607@phoronix.com> <4EE9F546.6060503@freebsd.org> <E76CA6AF-4109-4627-AF9B-D1C7C4C6D4E2@digsys.bg>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
This is an OpenPGP/MIME signed message (RFC 2440 and 3156) --------------enig90C2E873E806961B03779663 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Am 12/15/11 14:51, schrieb Daniel Kalchev: >=20 > On Dec 15, 2011, at 3:25 PM, Stefan Esser wrote: >=20 >> 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 us= ed. >> >> Just curious: Why did you choose ZFS on FreeBSD, while UFS2 (with >> journaling enabled) should be an obvious choice since it is more simil= ar >> in concept to ext4 and since that is what most FreeBSD users will use >> with FreeBSD? >=20 >=20 > Or perhaps, since it is "server" Linux distribution, use ZFS on Linux a= s 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= =2E >=20 > 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. Each OS does optimize on different filesystems and a user/manager can assume that the vendor offers the best performance available by turning on the default FS by a standard stock installation. Using ZFS on Linux would be a great disadvantage and the benchmark would turn out the same bullsh... as comparing Linux-domain only with FreeBSD weknesses only ... Linux distributions offer setups for desktop and server. The FreeBSD folks have the choice to do it themselfes. And maybe I'm one of those puritain people appreciating this. "Out of the box" OS is Windooze, with all its consequences. Oliver Post scriptum: It seems to be hard to follow the benchmark environment on Phoronix since the URL refers to a setup of different systems. --------------enig90C2E873E806961B03779663 Content-Type: application/pgp-signature; name="signature.asc" Content-Description: OpenPGP digital signature Content-Disposition: attachment; filename="signature.asc" -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- Version: GnuPG v1.4.11 (FreeBSD) iQEcBAEBAgAGBQJO6jVeAAoJEOgBcD7A/5N8ALYH/0un2B7HHTHdeoxEzN9UJ8x+ WhlqiupymlpJR2UJDkWlDRETa9JABFE6Iuc84iAPbcHExzyd6BbYMhr9pvX0OlCM p1IWXUHrpXzr3fs3qoWtQIJi4yr6/Wb2dvJJHBK8tuwyOd2XR9GC4/sIwFXpw7Up 7343FJKIhZXpacEkJP/rQz9PxjcmifzuuDQhwjvrbTJDoJn5CQvya9gcVFExlTBS 2qHd7UwCjRf6xiu9lhTEtYy4O5uZoqSLeprxTEowP4DRwSbBJ33Ix0eAGmEc4vfB OnijWNZVnR4J8VrSj1DXltb8t/wTKe9bWzT8lVf98cVK018vQ2h3juiASY/y++A= =6R/p -----END PGP SIGNATURE----- --------------enig90C2E873E806961B03779663--
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?4EEA3556.7030105>