Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

Benchmarking Debian's GNU/kFreeBSD

Collapse
X
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • #16
    Originally posted by trasz View Post
    Still, the CDDL license is Free Software (according to FSF) and Open Source (according to OSI) and is less restrictive than GPLv2, let alone GPLv3 - for example, it doesn't prohibit one from linking with code under any other license, which is what GPL does.
    Glad to see you're back. GPL is more restrictive and thus it's probably the best for projects which are direct competitors to projects that use proprietary or bsd licenses. GPL is to protect the code not to allow people to do what they want with it.

    Comment


    • #17
      Originally posted by droidhacker View Post
      Hurd... in development since 1990.
      20 years and there is YET to be a stable release.
      BSD has been around and stable since.... about the beginning of time.

      If they want a kernel option besides Linux, BSD is ready and waiting. Debian's been going around in circles with Hurd since they tried to pick it up back in 1998.


      Seriously, I'll believe in Hurd when it actually becomes more than vaporware.
      It's probably there. I think someone can post you some code-screenshots (it's opensource afterall). The only problem is work on it is too damn slow.

      Comment


      • #18
        Originally posted by Garp View Post
        Google's choice of ext4 is rather interesting, particularly given the serious performance regressions in the more recent kernels. I wonder if they're not just lining themselves up for a world of hurt.
        I don't know how many times this can be said, those ext4 performance regressions DON'T EXIST if you don't enable all the new safety features being added. I'm quite certain google will fine-tune the FS for their needs, and I wouldn't be surprised to see them completely disable the journal, for example, which is something ext4 allows.

        They've done benchmarking for their choice, but very importantly point out that it's the best file system for their particular needs and intended use. Doesn't make it the best file system every need.
        I think they pretty much came out and said the reason they chose ext4 over some of it's competition was because they could do an online upgrade, so switching to a completely new OS as well as a FS probably wasn't considered too closely if they were really that concerned about uptime.

        Comment


        • #19
          Originally posted by smitty3268 View Post
          I don't know how many times this can be said, those ext4 performance regressions DON'T EXIST if you don't enable all the new safety features being added. I'm quite certain google will fine-tune the FS for their needs, and I wouldn't be surprised to see them completely disable the journal, for example, which is something ext4 allows.
          Disabling barriers isn't enough:
          Originally posted by [url=http://www.phoronix.com/scan.php?page=article&item=ext4_then_now&num=6]The Performance Of EXT4 Then & Now (page 6)[/url]
          When using the nobarrier option the number of transactions per second had nearly doubled. However, even when using this EXT4 mount option, the 222 TPS that it had produced is still significantly less than 560~598 TPS that can be found in pre-2.6.32 kernels. In other words, there are still significant performance penalties in the more recent kernels.

          Comment


          • #20
            Some of those filesystem benchmarks look very dubious to me --- UFS shouldn't be that much slower than ext3. Can you confirm that you did have SoftUpdates turned on? Without that, you'll cripple the FreeBSD file system performance.

            Comment


            • #21
              Originally posted by david.given View Post
              Some of those filesystem benchmarks look very dubious to me --- UFS shouldn't be that much slower than ext3. Can you confirm that you did have SoftUpdates turned on? Without that, you'll cripple the FreeBSD file system performance.
              Yeah, I agree. What's the partition layout that Phoronix uses? If you do just a single slice of / then by default softupdates are disabled.

              Comment


              • #22
                Phoronix always test the default settings of each OS/distro. Guess what would happen if this wa not the case. Others would complain that you should enable this and not that and others the oppossite. So the default settings is the best option since that's what the users have when they install the system. Most of them afterall stay with the default settings for ever.

                Comment


                • #23
                  Originally posted by david.given View Post
                  Without that, you'll cripple the FreeBSD file system performance.
                  The same probably can be said about Ext3 if it wasn't using writeback mode etc.

                  Comment


                  • #24
                    FreeBSD's UFS is well known for it's speed with soft updates enabled. It should have been enabled. Using FreeBSD's UFS without soft updates is like using ext4 with extents turned off. I would even be so bold as to say that Debian's installer is broken if the default is to have soft updates disabled. BTW, I have been running a Debian GNU/kFreeBSD server since Lenny was still in testing.

                    Originally posted by Apopas View Post
                    Most of them afterall stay with the default settings for ever.
                    True if the user uses Windows or Mac OS X, or some other non-FOSS OS. FOSS OS's are designed to be tweaked and hacked. In fact, that's why most people use FOSS OS's. On a server, you will rarely ever go with the default install options, since most servers have a specific role, and you would want to tweak your server for that role. I do see your point for the sake of a comparison, but I sure hope you didn't intend that as a general statement.

                    Comment


                    • #25
                      Originally posted by tux9656 View Post
                      True if the user uses Windows or Mac OS X, or some other non-FOSS OS. FOSS OS's are designed to be tweaked and hacked. In fact, that's why most people use FOSS OS's. On a server, you will rarely ever go with the default install options, since most servers have a specific role, and you would want to tweak your server for that role. I do see your point for the sake of a comparison, but I sure hope you didn't intend that as a general statement.
                      I agree with you and that's one of the greatest benefits of FOSS. But since the tweaking options cover a large amount of different settings, from filesystems to kernels and desktop environments, it's impossible to satisfy everyone.
                      So the default options, maybe is not the best options around, but is something objective and at least it satisfies the default user.
                      At least there is phoronix global around, to test our tweaked systems.

                      Comment


                      • #26
                        We can go further and say Linux kernel was using non optimal config, file system, file system mount options etc. Linux kernel used here was also quite old.

                        Comment

                        Working...
                        X