Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

Benchmarking ZFS On FreeBSD vs. EXT4 & Btrfs On Linux

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

  • Originally posted by kebabbert View Post
    Solaris completes all threads slow (not very slow)". But when we ramp up difficulty and many cores, then Solaris continues to work slowly but steadily. Linux chokes and can not scale as well. Some threads take very long time, others finish quickly.
    Can you give me example? It reminds me some stupid bsd dev benchmark where they used broken thread library.

    In short, I dont claim that Solaris code is bug free. I dont think that Linux developers are bad, I believe they write good code. The problem is Linux develeopment model where he deletes code for new code all the time: "Linux evolves like in biology, it gets slowly better for each generation". This means that source code are always new and buggy. It takes long time to get mature bug free code. This is the reason Linux has lots of problems. With for instance, scalability.
    It's the typical mistake people do. You compare Solaris (which is an operating system) development to Linux (a kernel) development. Afaik these, so called stable kernels at kernel.org are just snaphots of the code which is developed continuously. Some people can differ, but I consider (and I'm according to Greg KH talk) there are no more stable releases (I can't define stable term in this case). You should rather compare Solaris to Debian, RHEL or to SLES (they all use well tested kernels and not the newest snapphots). I don't see where Linux has problems in scalability. I hope you're not according to well known problem with GNU's malloc library.

    In a few years, Oracle will release a SPARC machine with 16.384 threads and 64TB RAM. Each thread is treated almost like a cpu. This means Solaris runs a 16.000 cpu machine. On one single server. That is good scalability.
    No, it doesn't mean Solaris runs a 16.000 CPUs machine, you're not sane. If they will succeed it will run only 128CPU machine.

    Linux on the other hand, scales very well horizontally (in a network, such as Google having 10.000 PCs on a network and runs Linux kernel, or super computers doing calculations).
    It also scales on incredibly bigger machines then Solaris, because of limitations in Solaris kernel. Vertically Linux scales up to 4096 physical CPUs while Solaris scales only up to 64 physical CPUs.

    But vertically, Linux scales very bad. Linux has problems using many cpus on one single machine. I linked to a article where three Linux scalability experts from RedHat, etc - dispelled the FUD from Unix vendors that Linux scales bad. The scalability experts said "Linux scales super, for instance Google has 10.000 computers with Linux. Linux true strength is in horizontal scalability (large network). But also vertically Linux scales good (on one single computer). For instance in this v2.4 Linux uses 4 cores without problems, and in next v2.6 Linux will use 16 cores! Now, that is goooood scalability!". You see that they think that 16 cores in one single computer is good scalability - whereas all Unix vendors considers that very bad scalability. (But no one denies Linux scales good horizontally). Here is the article:
    http://searchenterpriselinux.techtar...ux-scalability
    Sorry, but this is bull and FUD. This is obsolete, because they're talking about Linux 2.6 and Linux since kernel 2.6.2x scales up to 4096CPUs on a single computer.

    And I saw talk about SGI having a computer with 1024 cpus that Linux runs on. That computer is quite special, it behaves like PCs on a network, it is not a single computer. It has something like 128 nodes, and all benchmarks always are using 128 instances of the work load, one for each node. Basically, it is just a cluster, some PCs on a fast switch. Here is more technical information on the SGI computer:
    http://www.c0t0d0s0.org/archives/675...-you,-SGI.html
    If you dont understand what he is talking about, it is ok. But try, and you will see why all SGI benchmarks always are parallell tasks that would equally be good in a cluster with 1024 cpus. This is not a vertical scaling machine.
    I showed you SGI computer using 256nodes, so four times bigger machine then Solaris can handle.

    Comment


    • Originally posted by kebabbert View Post
      No, you dont. You dont consider Linux to be credible, or Andrew Morton, or researchers or whatever.
      Yes, I do. Stop lying about me. Stop spreading FUD also.

      Comment


      • Oh, Kebbabert, it's funny SUN used such jerks to spread FUD about its competitors. SUN was a FUD company, but they're no more. Now, you're an alone FUDder, sorry gunman.

        Comment


        • Originally posted by kebabbert View Post
          As we have seen, Oracle likes to get total control over the products they sell. Oracle is closing parts of Solaris 11, for instance. That is the reason I ask why Oracle does not exert more control over BTRFS?
          Because it's impossible. Sun doesn't own linux, doesn't control it, and would fail miserably if they ever tried. Which is exactly why they never have, they're smart enough to realize that themselves.

          Comment


          • http://arstechnica.com/open-source/n...ro-is-dead.ars

            Comment


            • Open/Solaris/ZFS and zfs-fuse

              There should be also some distribution of Opensolaris/ZFS and Solaris/ZFS (and UFS) mesaurments for comparison (And why not, just for curiosity throw in Ubuntu with zfs-fuse test).

              Comment


              • Benchmarking ZFS On FreeBSD vs EXT4 Btrfs On Linux

                Um, linux has more holes because it has branched out into many more areas while FreeBSD remains a server OS. More people working on more things, of course there will be more "holes". FreeBSD is still trailing behind Linux in terms of hardware support. It would be nice to be able to run my OS using current hardware, holes and all.

                Comment


                • if you mean security holes - no.

                  FreeBSD has the policy that a local root exploit is nothing to worry about. Stuff like this is not fixed.

                  Linux distris on the other hand are quick to close such holes.

                  So from a strictly security point of view: FreeBSD is like a cheese.

                  Comment


                  • Energyman,
                    "FreeBSD has the policy that a local root exploit is nothing to worry about. Stuff like this is not fixed."

                    That sounds remarkable. Do you have any links on this, or did you just made it up?

                    Comment


                    • kraftman, where have you read the kernel scaling to 4096 CPU's on a single machine? I'm looking through the kernel menuconfig and it says the maximum number you can set CPU's to is 512

                      Comment


                      • CONFIG_MAXSMP: Enable Maximum number of SMP Processors and NUMA Nodes

                        raises it from 512 to 4096.

                        Comment


                        • That sounds remarkable. Do you have any links on this, or did you just made it up?
                          Second that, I have a hard time believing that FreeBSD wouldn't patch for local exploits, and a quick Google brings up alot of such patches. So this sounds very strange.

                          Comment


                          • kraftman, where have you read the kernel scaling to 4096 CPU's on a single machine? I'm looking through the kernel menuconfig and it says the maximum number you can set CPU's to is 512
                            The first link that Google gave me: http://www.theinquirer.net/inquirer/...nces-linux-hpc. A quote from the link:
                            the same operating system that his firm is loading onto its 4,096 core, 16 terabyte beast.

                            Comment


                            • Originally posted by F.Ultra View Post
                              Second that, I have a hard time believing that FreeBSD wouldn't patch for local exploits, and a quick Google brings up alot of such patches. So this sounds very strange.
                              I heard about this long ago. However, I'm not sure if this is true or not. Strange, indeed.

                              ************************************************** ************************************************** ***********************
                              @about holes

                              Cut the crap talk off. It's stupid comparing something such small like freebsd to some Linux distributions and saying freebsd has less bugs (compare it to Damn Small Linux or something). Btw. coverity discovered Linux code quality is better (bugs/LoC) then PC BSD (Freebsd has their own tracker from some, strange and unknown reason) and the time which takes to fix a bug matters the most.

                              Comment


                              • ZFS native

                                It'd be interesting to rerun this using the native ZFS linux implementation (it's much faster than fuse)

                                As others have said, ZFS is a server FS. There's little point running it on a single HDD and the best case scenario is 5 or more HDDs plus at least 1 SSD

                                Comment

                                Working...
                                X