Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

Benchmarking ZFS On FreeBSD vs. EXT4 & Btrfs On Linux

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

  • #91
    @kebabbert

    We all agree that ZFS is better today, but you are claiming that this would never change. You are claiming facts like:

    "Linux is really bad as a Large Enterprise server. It is not because of the bad filesystems, but because of limitations in the Linux kernel"

    You don't now how linux will evolve in the future.

    You point as an absolute true true some consultant oppinions. Eventhough there are kernel / FS devs who point the opposite. If plp show you this the article is just wrong, and ovbiously your 2008 articles are all true, and will remain true forever.

    You are not showing academic papers you are shoing us magazine articles.

    Do you know enough math to understand what this means? It means EXPONENTIAL GROWTH, the same as Moore's law. And if you dont know theory about asymptotics, let me tell you. Exponential growth is a very bad thing, it grows extremely fast. It actually, grows exponentially.

    Why am I wasting time pointing out errors in their juvenile reasonings?

    I, the "person that dont know math", will lecture you on math and formulas.

    "128 bitness in a filesystem is just plain silly in 2010" - Wrong. I hope I taught you something today.

    Next time, before you claim someone dont know arithmetic, I suggest you checkup your own arguments first. Maybe he has a PhD in math?
    Someone like that doesn't have PhD in math, as much you have PhD in narcissism.

    Comment


    • #92
      Originally posted by kebabbert View Post
      I didnt understand this. What do you mean? Do you mean you want to see papers from those journals? Or what do you mean? Could you please be more explicit, it is hard to understand you. (How many times have I said that? 30 times now?)
      I want to see papers backing up your claims, otherwise you're a FUDer and a troll. Those journals aren't papers and those links you gave are FUD, because they don't show papers neither. Writing more things and repeating them you're FUDing and trolling more. Show me the papers.

      Originally posted by kebabbert View Post
      There are several people that wants you banned. I wonder what the moderator say when I say that? What do you think, kratfman?
      It's a matter of believing. :> I think he can consider you're lying. I hope you didn't go away, because there are some things which can be fun.

      Comment


      • #93
        Originally posted by wake_up View Post
        @kraftman: you really believe that ZFS sux and is dead? Why? Because Linux don't have it? Don't be such ignorant..
        It doesn't matter, because Kebbabert is having fun playing in posts, so I don't have to be serious. I want him to proof me Solaris is not dead now. If he can't then the things he was talking about are obsolete.

        Comment


        • #94
          Originally posted by kebabbert View Post
          Great! Kraftman, thanks for your link http://www.linux-mag.com/id/7749/

          Your link supports me against this "smitty" person. He FUDs and lies a lot it seems.
          I don't believe he lies. Do you know what a term "lie" means? I bet you don't.

          To lie is to state something that one knows to be false or that one does not honestly believe to be true with the intention that a person will take it for the truth.
          Then, it seems you don't know if he lied.

          Lets get back to my question. What is FUD to you? A linux criticizer, is he FUDing? According to wikipedia, a FUDer is someone who lies and makes things up. Why do you imply I lie? I do not. I only quote others.
          You don't only quote others, but you're saying things yourself.

          FUD techniques may be crude and simple, as in claiming "I read a paper by a Harvard professor that shows you are wrong regarding subject XXX", but the paper does not exist. (Were the paper to exist then it would not be FUD but valid criticism.)
          Oh, you gave links to FUD to backup your claims. By linking to FUD aren't you FUDing? By saying things and not backing them up, aren't you FUDing?

          http://vger.kernel.org/~davem/cgi-bin/blog.cgi/2007/04/10#bonwick_scalability

          It says Solaris guys and Bonwick FUD.

          And let it not be missed how much Sun enjoys attacking it's competition via blogs, so they don't have to make any official statements in this area or stand behind what they say in any official capacity. And that, my friends, makes for one big coward of a company.
          It also says Sun was a big coward.

          I understand you get upset when I criticize Linux, by posting research papers, white papers, official benchmarks, interviews with Linux developers, etc - that is ok.
          You didn't backup your statements by research papers, white papers, official benchmarks and interviews you have posted (I'm not sure you posted all of these, but ok). Afaik those interviews are just personal opinions. I see nothing in papers you have posted which backups your statements. To backup your statements you showed some articles which are likely to be marketing bull (and which aren't papers) and some benchmarks made by sun or sun related sites, people etc. so likely biased and which doesn't count as a objective benchmarks. However, sun FUDs.

          This is much better, kraftman. You post links! However, you should preferably post credible links.
          This is the most credible link in my opinion. More credible then links from sun, solaris devs etc. So, prove me wrong.

          Comment


          • #95
            One more thing. To dispel your claims/FUD Kebbabert nobody has to provide you links. It's enough to provide some counter arguments. Even if you don't agree with them, you should consider you can't proof you're right or someone else's not. Otherwise, it's a pure trolling and FUDing. As far you only proved some people said what they said, so personal opinions and FUD. That's all.

            Comment


            • #96
              Kebabbert has started half a dozen never-ending troll fests this week. Every time you counter one of his points, he responds with about 50 new ones in a series of responses that no one has the time to respond to, and half of them just repeat exactly what you had just proved wrong.

              What does it take to bring down the ban-hammer around here?

              Comment


              • #97
                Originally posted by smitty3268 View Post
                Kebabbert has started half a dozen never-ending troll fests this week. Every time you counter one of his points, he responds with about 50 new ones in a series of responses that no one has the time to respond to, and half of them just repeat exactly what you had just proved wrong.

                What does it take to bring down the ban-hammer around here?
                i have only ever seen one person banned from phoronix. Rules are in place but they are hidden. This makes these rules non existent to most and as a result you see the lawlessness. People can be retarded and get away with it. It is also a principal of freedom to have free speech.

                Somewhere in the sand a line needs to be drawn; I think plenty here should be booted for being clinically retarded.

                Comment


                • #98
                  Yeah, it was a rhetorical question. His behavior is some of the worst I've seen on this site, though.

                  We all really just need to ignore him, it's obvious he feeds on the attention he's getting.

                  Comment


                  • #99
                    Originally posted by sbergman27 View Post
                    So we come to the real crux of the "discussion". I hurt your feelings. I wish I could honestly say I was sorry about that.
                    Actually, I react when people object to correct calculations and when people say wrong things about ZFS, or DTrace, or Linux. Then I just correct them. You are free to hate ZFS or Solaris, that is totally ok with me, I dont care. What I do care, is if you say wrong things. Then I react and correct you.

                    "Opinions are never wrong. Facts can be wrong." You are free to have any opinion you want. Actually, on another forum there was someone that bashed Solaris and Solaris supporters started a heated discussion - but I defended him! I said "let him be, let he say what he wants". But when that guy said wrong things about Solaris, I corrected him. For instance, he said "ZFS requires several GB just to boot, the memory foot print is huge". Which is wrong, so I corrected him.



                    Originally posted by sbergman27 View Post
                    At any rate, now that you've firmly established that all 64 bit filesystems are lacking (thank you), I should point out that despite the marketing rhetoric, ZFS is a 64 bit filesystem. Walked right into that one, didn't you? :-)

                    -Steve
                    No, I missed that one. You claim ZFS is 64bit? Do you have any more information on this? I dont think you FUD and lie about this, I have read this several times actually from different people. But I would like to find out more on this, too. If you are correct on this, then I will immediately stop say that ZFS is 128bit, of course. So, please show me links on this.

                    Comment


                    • Originally posted by wake_up View Post
                      Can we all stop this?
                      Because right now this threat is looking like never-ending story...

                      What do we want to show exactly? Because right now it's looking like a war of fanboys...
                      I react when people say "Solaris is dead now" and spread FUD. I just try to stop the FUD. Is that wrong to do?

                      Also, I react when people say "ZFS is slow. Muhahahhaha". Because that is not true. It can give huge performance, as I have shown.

                      The thing is, if people lie about ZFS, Solaris or spread FUD or whatever - then I react.

                      If people hate Solaris or ZFS, or whatever - I dont care. I dont react. I would be silent and do not post here. People are free to have any opinion. I just react to wrong things.

                      I would not object to this: "I hate Solaris. I dont like it"

                      To this I would react: "I heard that Solaris is dead, and that ZFS have no advantaqes over other filesystems". First of all, Solaris is not dead. Just this week, HP and Dell got new contracts from Oracle, where they sell Solaris on their servers. It would not happen if Solaris was dead. Second, ZFS protects your data.

                      I just react to all this FUD that is going on here. I try to stop FUD. I dont see anything wrong doing that?


                      You really believe that any sysadmin of huge system is reading phoronix forum and take whatever you are writing here as irrefutable true?
                      No, I can write whatever I want, it can be lies. But, the researchers that I link to, says something. And maybe the sysadmins trust the researchers. Of course, I dont expect sysadmins to read this site, but I need to get rid of misconceptions about ZFS. To tell people how things really are.


                      I also do care about data safety. The fact is that for 12 years of using many OSes and many FSes i didn't loose any data.
                      This is interesting. If you had read my links on this, you would have seen the following:
                      There is very small chance you corrupt your data. Maybe a few bits in every TB you read, is wrong. Long ago, the largest drive was 1GB. So it took very long time before you read 1TB, so you almost never saw corrupted bits. The data was too small. But now, the discs are big. And raids are bigger. For instance, Greenplum database solution, scans 1TB data each 15 minutes. This means, every 15 min, they face corrupted bits. Today it is not uncommon to have TB big raid for a home user. It is possible to have TB raids today, and then you will surely read corrupt bits. The larger raids, the more corrupted bits you will face. If you have a really large raid, say 10TB, there are several files that are corrupted. (This is the reason Greenplum is using ZFS too). People just dont know this about data corruption. And I tell them: "No, you dont understand. Things are like this actually:...."


                      What? I'ts very easy to fix Linux without reinstalling it, ie. by downgrading package that cause error. You could also have a snapshot of working Linux, it's also not hard work.
                      It is? Then I stop say so. How do you do a snapshot in linux? And, downgrading package, does it always work? Never problems?


                      Then forgive me my ignorance because i red only few of last pages, and from that point of view you looked like attacker, forgive me.
                      No problemo, man!

                      Comment


                      • Originally posted by kebabbert View Post
                        That is cool. But, there is a long way from wanting BTRFS to provide complete data integration, and for BTRFS to really do it in practice. It is not as easy to just add some checksums here and there. It is much more difficult. Today, after all these years since the first hard drive was sold, only ZFS provides good data integrity (which has actually been proven by comp sci researchers in papers) in a common filesystem. No one has succeeded before.
                        Could you provide a reference to the paper you are talking about because I don't simplistic claims. I was just pointing that the design is intended to provide full data integrity rather than just metadata integrity because of the fundamental design. I assume you are not a filesystem developer and neither am I so I am not going to argue about implementation details. If you want a additional reference, you can look from someone who was a ZFS developer and now works on storage subsystem in Linux.

                        http://lwn.net/Articles/342892/

                        Comment


                        • Originally posted by Jimbo View Post
                          @kebabbert

                          We all agree that ZFS is better today, but you are claiming that this would never change. You are claiming facts like:

                          "Linux is really bad as a Large Enterprise server. It is not because of the bad filesystems, but because of limitations in the Linux kernel"

                          You don't now how linux will evolve in the future.
                          No, I dont claim that Linux will always have those limitations in the kernel that the senior storage expert talks about. Actually, I made it clear on several places I talk about now and near future: I say things as BTRFS will be better in the future.


                          You are not showing academic papers you are shoing us magazine articles.
                          I have showed academic papers. And other credible sources, such as official benchmarks, interviews to Linus T, etc. Those sources are credible.


                          Someone like that doesn't have PhD in math, as much you have PhD in narcissism.
                          I have never claimed I have a PhD in math. I do not. My level is Master's. Regarding narcissim, I do not have a PhD in that either. But I do react when people say wrong things about ZFS, then I correct them. And I do react when I read all the FUD here. I try to counter balance all FUD about Solaris. I do not prefer to be silent, and letting the FUD to continue "Solaris is dead", "ZFS is slow", etc. I am trying to counter FUD, by pointing out errors in people's posts and linking to credible sources. If you prefer let the FUD spread, it is fine with you, but not to me.

                          Comment


                          • Originally posted by kraftman View Post
                            I want to see papers backing up your claims, otherwise you're a FUDer and a troll. Those journals aren't papers and those links you gave are FUD, because they don't show papers neither. Writing more things and repeating them you're FUDing and trolling more. Show me the papers.
                            No, you dont understand. Research papers must not be published in only the journals you link too. There are 1000s of journals. So, no. BTW, I have posted links to several researchers.




                            Kebabbert wrote
                            "There are several people that wants you banned. I wonder what the moderator say when I say that? What do you think, kratfman?"
                            It's a matter of believing. :> I think he can consider you're lying. I hope you didn't go away, because there are some things which can be fun.
                            You know what, Kraftman? I just lied and FUDed about you. I have got no PM or mail from people wanting to ban you. There are no PM nor mail about you! This was just an exercise to show you what true FUD and lies are. Now, do you finally understand what FUD is? Do you see that I do not FUD or lie about Linux, ZFS, etc? I FUDed about you, I lied, I said many false things - but I could never prove my claims about you if you had asked me. You should have asked "I dont believe you, prove there are lots of people wanting to ban me". And then I must be silent, and then you would understood I just lied and FUDed about you. So, you must always ask for credible sources when someone says something. If he can not give credible sources, then maybe he is lying.

                            So let me ask you again, do you still think that Linux critizim is FUD? The same thing? Dont you see that FUD is not crititizm? I do not make things up, I post to credible sources. You see that I do not FUD. I just strongly critizice, but that is another thing than lie and FUD. I do not lie.

                            (I dont want you banned, because you give me a reaon to post about Solaris and ZFS and Dtrace, etc! )

                            Comment


                            • Kraftman wrote:
                              "Solaris is dead. Prove me wrong moron:"

                              Originally posted by kebabbert View Post
                              I did not understand what you want me to prove. Could you be more clearer? "Solaris is dead"? I mean, it is sold today. People runs it today. Development continues today. etc. I dont understand what you want me to prove?
                              Again, could you specify what you want me to prove? If you do not specify then I can not prove it. How do mean "solaris is dead"?
                              1) Do you mean development of Solaris has stopped?
                              2) Do you mean Solaris is not sold anymore?
                              3) Do you mean no one is using Solaris?
                              4) Do you mean there is no market for Solaris?
                              5) Or do you mean everything 1-4?

                              What do you want me to prove, Kraftman? Please specify. I can prove everything above. But what do you ask? I do not understand. How many times earlier have I asked you to be more specific? 30 times?

                              Comment


                              • Originally posted by kraftman View Post
                                I think we have discussed this link earlier.


                                You didn't backup your statements by research papers, white papers, official benchmarks and interviews you have posted (I'm not sure you posted all of these, but ok).
                                Kraftman, you are hilarious. First you deny I posted research papers, white papers, etc - and then you say something like "I am not sure you posted these, maybe you did". Jesus Kraftman. Why do you make up things? If you dont know if I posted this sources (which I have done) then dont deny it! Kraftman, dont make things up, because then you FUD. Please stop FUD, I told you.


                                This is the most credible link in my opinion. More credible then links from sun, solaris devs etc. So, prove me wrong.
                                In my opinion it is not credible at all. Research papers are more credible. I can also start to post links to Solaris guys explaining how bad Linux is, but I dont. Because Solaris guys are biased against Linux. And Linux guys are biased against Solaris.

                                It is much more credible if you post to Solaris guys pointing out flaws in Solaris. I post to Linux people pointing flaws in Linux. I do not post Solaris guys pointing out flaws in Linux - that would be pointless. Therefore, you link is not credible at all. Your link goes to a biased Linux guy.

                                Comment

                                Working...
                                X