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. 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.
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.4.0 : Wed May 19 2021 - 11:40:22 UTC