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 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,
    Or, maybe you can not prove me wrong. Maybe that is the reason you dont even try. Come on. Go ahead, prove me wrong. In university, I have studied maths for many years, and all we did, was to find errors in proofs. I am highly trained in proofs.


    Originally posted by smitty3268 View Post
    and half of them just repeat exactly what you had just proved wrong.
    Woah! Did you prove me wrong? Can you quote that post where I was wrong? I missed that. Or did you just make it up?

    In fact, I showed that YOU lied.
    http://www.phoronix.com/forums/showp...6&postcount=88

    But you have not showed that I lie anywhere. You are maybe lying about this, too?

    Comment


    • Originally posted by RahulSundaram View Post
      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/
      I am not a filesystem developer, that is correct.

      I am only saying that to offer data safety is extremely difficult. You can not just add checksums all over the place in BTRFS. It is not that simple. I have linked to research papers that show that filsystems like ext3, ReiserFS, XFS, etc does not give data safety. Neither does raid 5, raid 6. And all these technologies have lots of checksums. But still they does not offer adequate data protection. Why do you expect BTRFS to be different? There is one BTRFS developer that tries to do that.

      Sun ZFS team has many years experience of data corruption. They can do it right.

      In my opinion, if Oracle really wants to bet on BTRFS, Oracle should have assigned a whole team of developers to BTRFS. But guess what? There is only one single developer on BTRFS. Oracle is not interested in BTRFS, now that they got the best: ZFS. Come on, do you really expect BTRFS is a serious attempt by Oracle? There is only ONE full time developer! Jesus. Who are you trying to fool?

      Comment


      • Originally posted by kebabbert View Post
        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.
        Ok perfect! You didn't sound that way 10 pages ago.


        Originally posted by kebabbert View Post
        In my opinion, if Oracle really wants to bet on BTRFS, Oracle should have assigned a whole team of developers to BTRFS. But guess what? There is only one single developer on BTRFS. Oracle is not interested in BTRFS, now that they got the best: ZFS. Come on, do you really expect BTRFS is a serious attempt by Oracle? There is only ONE full time developer! Jesus. Who are you trying to fool?

        mmm I don't know how many devs are under oracle nominee. I suggest you to look at btrfs mailing list and kernel fs dev mailing list, you could see that btrfs is being actively developed by a bunch of devs, not only one. There is a big difference from other projects where only 1 person develops, you are painting the wrong picture. On linux fs dev list you could also see how FS improvements on multicore environment are being vastly improved for 2.6.36-37, there are bench too, done by devs. If you read more on developers mailing list and less from 2008 consultant / magazine articles you could see that your ideas about near future are basically wrong.

        Comment


        • Please, stop the madness!

          Lets just discuss interesting facets of the filesystems in-question in their respective environments.
          What's the point of all this "tit-for-tat"?!

          There's no such thing as the l337est environment/filesytem.
          All are worthy of informed, useful, constructive/helpful discussion.

          Comment


          • Originally posted by Jimbo View Post
            Ok perfect! You didn't sound that way 10 pages ago.
            Maybe I was not clear enough, or you misinterpreted me. Anyway, as of now, Linux has limitations. But in the future, Linux most probably will only be better. IBM basically says this too. IBM AIX is phased out, it will be killed. IBM will bet on Linux instead. This is outspoken and official. So, basically, IBM also says that Linux is not mature enough right now. IBM sales personal always tries to sell IBM AIX which is very expensive, and as a last resort, IBM tries to sell Linux. But IBM does not try to sell Linux the first thing IBM does.


            Originally posted by Jimbo View Post
            mmm I don't know how many devs are under oracle nominee. I suggest you to look at btrfs mailing list and kernel fs dev mailing list, you could see that btrfs is being actively developed by a bunch of devs, not only one. There is a big difference from other projects where only 1 person develops, you are painting the wrong picture. On linux fs dev list you could also see how FS improvements on multicore environment are being vastly improved for 2.6.36-37, there are bench too, done by devs. If you read more on developers mailing list and less from 2008 consultant / magazine articles you could see that your ideas about near future are basically wrong
            I have read on a link here, that there is only one full time developer on BTRFS. I know there are part time developers, and probably some hobby developers working on their spare time. But still, if Oracle is really seriously committed to BTRFS, they should dedicate much more resources, preferably some ZFS developers. You can not develop an Enterprise filesystem in the basement, by some part time developers. If Oracle wants to sell and earn money on BTRFS, then it could be wise to develop most of BTRFS in house? Now there is one full time dev, and other part time developers. I dont see how you can get an enterprise product to support and sell, from such a small effort?

            But maybe I am wrong, as you say. Or maybe I am right: now that Oracle has ZFS, then Oracle quickly lost interest in developing another filesystem that does exactly the same thing as ZFS does, without adding something new. Why develop two identical products? Does not make sense from a business perspective. But time will tell. Maybe both of us are wrong!

            From a personal point of view, I hope BTRFS succeeds, because that forces ZFS to become better. Which forces BTRFS to become better. etc. Upward spiral. Competition and choice is always good for us customers.

            Comment


            • Originally posted by jalyst View Post
              Please, stop the madness!

              Lets just discuss interesting facets of the filesystems in-question in their respective environments.
              What's the point of all this "tit-for-tat"?!

              There's no such thing as the l337est environment/filesytem.
              All are worthy of informed, useful, constructive/helpful discussion.
              Yes.

              Did you read my posts and links about data corruption? What do you think about data corruption?

              Comment


              • Nope only recently subscribed, I will watch the progression -if any- from now.

                Comment


                • Do you value your data? Have you heard about data corruption? Is that important to know, for you?

                  Comment


                  • Yes I do, yes I have, yes it is.

                    Comment


                    • Originally posted by kebabbert View Post
                      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.
                      You must show them to proof such papers exists, otherwise it's nothing more then FUDing and trolling. However, SUN FUDs.

                      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?
                      I don't understand. While Solaris is dead then it can't be better then Linux which is not dead. Do you mean something which is dead is better then something which is not?

                      Comment


                      • Originally posted by kebabbert View Post
                        Do you value your data? Have you heard about data corruption? Is that important to know, for you?
                        Stupid editing time-limit...
                        Yes I do, in what context?, yes it is.

                        Comment


                        • Originally posted by kebabbert View Post
                          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".
                          One thing not related to another. This what you said is example of FUDing:

                          Fear, uncertainty, and doubt (FUD) is a tactic of rhetoric and fallacy used in sales, marketing, public relations, politics and propaganda.
                          I've deny you posted research papers, white papers, etc. which backups your claims. I didn't say you didn't post any research papers, white papers, etc.

                          Comment


                          • Originally posted by kraftman View Post
                            I don't understand. While Solaris is dead then it can't be better then Linux which is not dead. Do you mean something which is dead is better then something which is not?
                            Since when is solaris dead?
                            Still looks pretty healthy to me.

                            Comment


                            • Originally posted by jalyst View Post
                              Since when is solaris dead?
                              Still looks pretty healthy to me.
                              According to some link it's dead already. However, read some previous posts.

                              Comment


                              • opensolaris is alive and well.

                                Comment

                                Working...
                                X