FreeBSD's UFS vs Ext4
frank at shute.org.uk
Mon Feb 8 15:00:17 UTC 2010
On Mon, Feb 08, 2010 at 10:01:05AM +1100, alex wrote:
> Frank Shute wrote:
> >On Mon, Feb 08, 2010 at 01:41:29AM +1100, alex wrote:
> >>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.
> >So you had a machine that had run non-stop for 3 years yet you replace
> >the OS. Clever.
> Yes I replaced the OS. Because the box was to also be a PBX (running
> asterisk, instead of just being a file server/web server for running
> local web apps). I was continually getting coredumps with asterisk.
> After filing numerous bug reports and hitting dead ends with the
> asterisk devs, I had enough, because none of them knew how to debug the
> problem under freebsd, I got fed up and moved the box over to linux, and
> to my surprise, no more core dumps.
> >>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)
> >They don't like the license, that's not stubbornness.
> Wow thats a good reason to use ancient compilers and assemblers.
AFAIK, the system compiler is going to be clang in the future and for
ports you'll install a compiler from ports.
> >>* The teams stubbornness with the base system binutils (which cause
> >>mplayer and other multimedia applications not to build, unless a newer
> >>version is installed)
> You dont see having a set of binutils thats not SSE3 or SSE4 capable as
> a problem? It's nonsense?
I'm not saying that. I don't remember having to install new binutils
to install mplayer.
> >>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.
> >A codes age has nothing to do with it's performance.
> Clearly you know nothing about how compilers generate and optimize code.
> If this isnt a problem, why would new versions of gcc and binutils
> continue to surface. Well I can see three obvious reasons, improved code
> generation, bug fixes, new features.
There isn't some vast jump in performance provided by an up to date
and buggy as hell version of gcc. The improved code performance isn't
worth swallowing some daft, verbiose, impenetrable licence for either.
> >>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.
> >Link please.
> Sure, no problem, enjoy:
> Go on, I am waiting for you to poke holes and attempt to totally
> invalidate those benchmarks too.
On the whole, I don't believe in benchmarks. They don't even tell half
the story when it comes to choosing an OS and they're always rather
> >>I'd like to see what the FreeBSD team has to say on this.
> >Despite your FreeBSD T-shirt ownage, your post is a troll.
> >Nobody's interested in your bogus benchmarks & opinions on matters
> >that you are not knowledgeable of.
> I guess you cant see the difference between a troll and a complaint. I
> have been using freebsd since the 4.x days. It seems you have quite a
> chip on your shoulder, frank.
Heh, I resemble that remark! I'm well balanced - chip on both
FYI, I've used FreeBSD since 4.3 and before that I used Linux.
Linux has a rather nasty thrown together feeling about it in
comparison and the scheduler on Linux in those days was bloody
useless: it had trouble handling more than one task.
So it's swings and roundabouts. Linux maybe more performant but it's
got (had) it's problems.
Don't know about nowadays but I've got no reason to go back and try it
If you do, good luck to you!
Contact info: http://www.shute.org.uk/misc/contact.html
More information about the freebsd-questions