Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

Benchmarking ZFS On FreeBSD vs. EXT4 & Btrfs On Linux

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

  • #46
    Originally posted by cjcox View Post
    How long have you dealt with the Sun experts? I have dealt with them for MANY MANY MANY years (20+). Let me tell you first hand that these guys are MASTER of the untruth. They will hide their bugs and problems for YEARS... and then after they feel safe, they will let you into their "secrets" and show you just HOW BAD their code really was.
    This is interesting. Could you tell me more on this? I want to hear more. If they use foul play, just like IBM, then I dont like that.

    And you also claim the code was bad. Can you tell me more on this? Which code? Was it important code, or was it an unimportant shell script?


    Do you read the forums? Do you SEE the problems that people are having with ZFS?
    Yes I read the OpenSolaris forums, and I see that people have trouble with ZFS. I have never denied that. I had said earlier here, several times, that ZFS has bugs. But I also think ZFS is still the best out there. And it is rapidly maturing, thanks to the great Solaris developers.

    The opensolaris forum is one single forum. Every ZFS user goes there to post about ZFS, or complain. Meanwhile, the ext3 and other Linux filesystems are spread out on several different forums. I have read stories about Linux people loosing data too.


    Ok.. so we have different opinions about Sun's expertise (expertise that bankrupt the company btw). That's ok... but I just want to make sure that people understand, there is ANOTHER side to the story apart from the slick marketing and persuasive arguments that Sun and its engineers tell.
    I dont doubt the Sun sales personal sucked. But I talk about the Sun engineers, that provenly does great and innovative tech that no one has thought of earlier. Tech that many OSes want. Solaris has not only ZFS and DTrace that is great, there are other great tech there, too.

    Meanwhile, I dont see anything that makes devs drool about anything that Linux has. Sure, Linux gives better FPS in gaming, or graphics. But no one has denied Linux is a better desktop OS. But Enterprise use in another thing.

    Comment


    • #47
      I wouldn't draw the conclusion that BtrFS is slower than ZFS, just because ZFS is so scalable. The similarities between BtrFS and ZFS are significant and one could say that BtrFS is an extension of ZFS. It might turn out faster and more scalable in the end, but currently it is too nice to call it beta stage IMHO. The basic problem with BtrFS is the data structure that has proven difficult to implement efficiently and might prove impossible to implement efficiently with all desirable features.

      Broken Btrfs:
      http://lwn.net/Articles/393148/

      Comment


      • #48
        Originally posted by aka101 View Post
        I wouldn't draw the conclusion that BtrFS is slower than ZFS, just because ZFS is so scalable.
        I dont say that BTRFS is slower than ZFS. I am only saying to the BTRFS fans that say ZFS is slow; ZFS can give huge performance, far surpassing for instance, BTRFS.

        It is only a matter of ZFS configuration. Just add some more discs or SSD and you get more performance. ZFS handles the extra hardware automatically for you.

        So, I just want to say this: "Muhahahaha" in your face. I TOLD you that ZFS is the best out there. ZFS does everything that other filesystems do, but better. But on top of that, ZFS gives DATA INTEGRITY. That is the ONLY reason to run ZFS. Sure, ZFS is extremely fast in Enterprise settings but that is not the reason to use ZFS. It is data safety.

        BTW, Phoronix doesnt do Enterprise benchmarks. If Phoronix did, Linux would loose on every benchmark. Solaris is since long, targeted to Enterprise. Not Desktop. Phoronix only do Desktop benchmarks: single computer, 8 cores benchmarks, single disc, etc. That is chicken shit. When we talk about large Enterprise stuff, then Linux just doesnt cut it. Linux is a great DesktopOS. I admit it. Linux is better DesktopOS than OpenSolaris or Solaris.

        But, desktop and Enterprise are different things. People here, just don't understand it. They see BTRFS is faster on single disc (a desktop benchmark), and draw the conclusion "BTRFS is ZFS killer". Jesus. How can you compare Desktop vs Enterprise, that easy???

        If we ventured into the realms of LARGE servers giving huge performance, people would understand the true strength of Solaris, ZFS, DTrace and all other Solaris tech. They just dont have any experience of it, so they believe it is just to add some cpus, discs, etc to Linux and then you have Enterprise. No, up comes lots of different, new scalability problems that are very hard to solve. IBM AIX which is very mature and high end, didnt scale well cpu wise, until recently. It IS difficult to scale well. Enterprise IS difficult.

        Comment


        • #49
          So, where was OpenSolaris in all this? Seeing as it's the native environment to run ZFS in?

          Comment


          • #50
            Originally posted by aka101 View Post
            Or perhaps Linux kernel is too bloated for ZFS and XEN? Also consider that two slim systems with poor matching can give a bloated result when merged. ZFS is claimed to be very slim compared to other file systems, but I can't confirm this. I have heard 25k LoC?
            No. Afaik XEN was too bloated (its design was messed up, so it would pollute the kernel areas which weren't polluted by KVM, beause its design was smarter). So, in theory zfs could pollute some kernel areas due to its bloated design while other Linux file systems don't pollute them.

            Comment


            • #51
              @kebabbert

              Can you stop hijacking the thread with such bull?

              Comment


              • #52
                Originally posted by kraftman View Post
                No. Afaik XEN was too bloated (its design was messed up, so it would pollute the kernel areas which weren't polluted by KVM, beause its design was smarter). So, in theory zfs could pollute some kernel areas due to its bloated design while other Linux file systems don't pollute them.
                Ehrm. We know Linux kernel has problems, bad code quality, bugs, etc. Even some Linux kernel devs even say Linux is bloated. We have never seen anyone saying ZFS is bloated.

                Now you are just FUDing again. Just as when you write Solaris is buggy, slow, etc. I have asked you to show links on this, but you never have. Unless you can show links with some credibility, you are just FUDing. As usual.


                And, what do you mean I post "bull"? Do I lie? I dont lie, like you do. I post links and research papers, articles, etc. Do you claim the PhD researchers lie in their article? I just quote them. I dont make anything up, like you Linux fanatics do. Linus T SAYS Linux is bloated, and if you read that interview, it is clear what Linus T means. He means it is bloated.

                Look, you can call me posting bull, when I make things up. When I lie. When I say things with no credibility, such as "I talked to someone who said Linux crashed an entire nuclear plant" - if there is no proof then that could be lies and FUD. I post no Lies nor FUD.



                Of course I strongly critizice Linux - but that is not lies, nor FUD, nor Troll. That is relevant criticism. Criticism is a different thing from FUD or Lies. Not the same thing. You can criticize without Lie. Like me.

                Comment


                • #53
                  Originally posted by kebabbert View Post
                  I dont say that BTRFS is slower than ZFS. I am only saying to the BTRFS fans that say ZFS is slow; ZFS can give huge performance, far surpassing for instance, BTRFS.
                  Show me.

                  So, I just want to say this: "Muhahahaha" in your face. I TOLD you that ZFS is the best out there. ZFS does everything that other filesystems do, but better. But on top of that, ZFS gives DATA INTEGRITY. That is the ONLY reason to run ZFS. Sure, ZFS is extremely fast in Enterprise settings but that is not the reason to use ZFS. It is data safety.
                  ZFS isn't safe and it's slow and bloated. Btrfs comes to kill it. While data integrity is the only reason to run it then it's worse in everything else.

                  BTW, Phoronix doesnt do Enterprise benchmarks. If Phoronix did, Linux would loose on every benchmark. Solaris is since long, targeted to Enterprise. Not Desktop. Phoronix only do Desktop benchmarks: single computer, 8 cores benchmarks, single disc, etc. That is chicken shit. When we talk about large Enterprise stuff, then Linux just doesnt cut it. Linux is a great DesktopOS. I admit it. Linux is better DesktopOS than OpenSolaris or Solaris.
                  Slowlaris is dead and its run by those who had contracts etc. Linux kills slowlaris in enterprise. Show me Linux would loose every benchmark, because what I saw it's slowlaris which is loosing. You lie Orvar Korvar, a known troll from osnews.com.

                  Comment


                  • #54
                    Originally posted by kebabbert View Post
                    Of course I strongly critizice Linux - but that is not lies, nor FUD, nor Troll. That is relevant criticism. Criticism is a different thing from FUD or Lies. Not the same thing. You can criticize without Lie. Like me.
                    It's not a criticizm moron, because those aren't papers you're basing on and thus you're a troll, fudder and a lier. You see Orvar, in the big picturer you're a moron. We all know Linux surpases, bloated, slow, insecure, buggy slowlaris.

                    Comment


                    • #55
                      Kraftman, now you are FUDing again. You are just a FUDer. Poor Kraftboy, cant you stop FUD? Try it, it is not hard to do. Try to post only things you have read from research papers, articles in scientific journals, etc, and do not make things up nor lie. Try that. Just like I do.

                      I got PM from people called you "insane". I wonder why they think so, of you?

                      Comment


                      • #56
                        http://osdir.com/ml/os.solaris.opens.../msg00020.html

                        Solaris feels so bloated and forking processes on it is so slow. Also,some applications consume a lot more CPU time on Solaris.Why is that, Korvar?

                        Comment


                        • #57
                          Originally posted by kraftman View Post
                          It's not a criticizm moron, because those aren't papers you're basing on and thus you're a troll, fudder and a lier.
                          Ok, this is interesting. I agree I criticize Linux, that is true.


                          But you think that strong criticism is the same thing as FUD and Trolling? Every criticizer do FUD and Troll? It is not possible to criticize without being a FUDer? Is this your view point?


                          To me, FUD and Troll, is when you lie or make up negative things. If you lie, then you FUD and Troll. If you say true things, it is not FUD nor Troll, then it is only relevant criticism. You must be able to say true things that are even negative? Or do you just want to silence all criticizers? Just like Soviet did? Shoot all criticizers? It is forbidden to criticize?

                          Comment


                          • #58
                            Originally posted by kebabbert View Post
                            Kraftman, now you are FUDing again. You are just a FUDer. Poor Kraftboy, cant you stop FUD? Try it, it is not hard to do. Try to post only things you have read from research papers, articles in scientific journals, etc, and do not make things up nor lie. Try that. Just like I do.

                            I got PM from people called you "insane". I wonder why they think so, of you?
                            White papers, you didn't backup your claims by whitepapers poor Orvar. There's some draft probably sponsored by sun, but it's a draft only, probaby because sun feared to release it as a final, because Linux guys could reply then. Where are your papers FUDer?

                            Comment


                            • #59
                              Originally posted by kebabbert View Post
                              But you think that strong criticism is the same thing as FUD and Trolling? Every criticizer do FUD and Troll? It is not possible to criticize without being a FUDer? Is this your view point?
                              You didn't show papers, so you're FUDing and trolling.

                              To me, FUD and Troll, is when you lie or make up negative things. If you lie, then you FUD and Troll. If you say true things, it is not FUD nor Troll, then it is only relevant criticism. You must be able to say true things that are even negative? Or do you just want to silence all criticizers? Just like Soviet did? Shoot all criticizers? It is forbidden to criticize?
                              It's relevant criticism when paper exist, but you didn't show papers backing up your claims. When the things you say are truth in your opinion?

                              Comment


                              • #60
                                kebabbert, we want to see the papers that support your claims. Please provide at least titles and authors. Otherwise, you are a FUDer

                                Comment

                                Working...
                                X