Benchmark (Phoronix): FreeBSD 9.0-RC2 vs. Oracle Linux 6.1
ohartman at zedat.fu-berlin.de
Thu Dec 15 17:58:56 UTC 2011
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.
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.
It seems to be hard to follow the benchmark environment on Phoronix
since the URL refers to a setup of different systems.
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Size: 488 bytes
Desc: OpenPGP digital signature
Url : http://lists.freebsd.org/pipermail/freebsd-current/attachments/20111215/6e7daf76/signature.pgp
More information about the freebsd-current