FreeBSD's UFS vs Ext4

alex alex at
Sun Feb 7 14:41:37 UTC 2010

Hi Guys,

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 
sustaining 86MB/s.

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 
performance wise?

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 
FreeBSD tshirts.

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 mailing list