FreeBSD's UFS vs Ext4
alex at mailinglist.ahhyes.net
Sun Feb 7 14:41:37 UTC 2010
Today I reformatted a machine (network server) thats run FreeBSD nonstop
for at least the last 3 years and installed linux on it. I have a raid 0
setup with 2 hard disks in the very same machine.
Previously, the maximum I could get across my gigabit enabled network
was 60MB/s (megabytes) per second sustained transfer rate.
Now that the same machine's raid is formatted with ext4, i am easily
I cant put it down to the operating system kernel, as to the vast
difference in performance, i suspect it is simply ext4 thats producing
the better results (I have come to this conclusion because no hardware
has changed on that machine, only the OS).
So can I safely conclude that ext4 is miles ahead of FreeBSD's UFS
I'd like to see some feedback..
I am by no means a linux troll. In fact I am far from it. I own many
I see a number of factors putting freebsd behind:
* The teams stubbornness with compiler/base tools (wont move away from
gcc 4.2.1 because they just cant accept the GPL2)
* The teams stubbornness with the base system binutils (which cause
mplayer and other multimedia applications not to build, unless a newer
version is installed)
* NO interest in developing new filesystems (forget ZFS), i am talking
about a base filesystem, ext4 blows the socks off UFS.
Using such an old compiler must have a performance impact on the OS. I
say this because compilers improve over time, they generate better,
tighter, more optimized code. The binutils shipped with freebsd is more
than 5 years old now.
It's not just my personal test that has shown that linux is ahead in
numerous areas (performance wise), but the recent phoronix benchmarks
that were released when FreeBSD 8 came out, were pretty damning.
I'd like to see what the FreeBSD team has to say on this.
More information about the freebsd-questions