On Thu, Dec 15, 2011 at 9:58 AM, O. Hartmann <ohartman_at_zedat.fu-berlin.de> 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_at_gmail.comReceived on Thu Dec 15 2011 - 17:06:23 UTC
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.4.0 : Wed May 19 2021 - 11:40:22 UTC