Benchmarking ZFS On FreeBSD vs. EXT4 & Btrfs On Linux

[Jimbo]

"There is only one full time paid developer" So?

Nothing, it is fine under my POV. But use this to kick btrfs development, a lot of devs from lot of companies are development it, is unfair and fud.

-Oracle has not invested much in BTRFS, one full time developer has been paid for some time. BTRFS has not delivered yet, it is only hype at this stage.

-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?

[energyman]

Solaris did so well, the former behemoth Sun was taken over by Oracle. Should tell everybody a lot.
Also Top500. Look at it.

[kebabbert]

Solaris did so well, the former behemoth Sun was taken over by Oracle. Should tell everybody a lot.
Also Top500. Look at it.

Sun did well techincally. From a business view point, Sun did not do well. Windows is better business thatn Linux (MS earns more money) - does this mean that Windows is better technically, than Linux? Of course not. Wrong.

Top500. Jesus not that one again. I have posted ~10 times about top500 and explained how top500 does not count. Here is another explaination. At place 5(?) is Blue Gene. Blue Gene uses something like 700MHz PowerPC cpus. Now, according to your logic, 700MHz PowerPC is among the fastest CPUs in the world! Correct, or wrong?

Read my earlier posts about top500. It says nothing. Super computers do only one thing well. Specialized hardware is easy to do. Specialized kernel is easy to do. Super computers are basically a network with lots of PCs. Linux scales well horizontally, but not veritaclly.

[kebabbert]

Kebabbert wrote:
"Because you have not read this thread from the beginning, I post this article again. Here is a link to a research paper about how XFS, JFS, ReiserFS, etc does not protect your data - which is what I have claimed earler."

http://www.zdnet.com/blog/storage/ho...ta-at-risk/169

So, when I post to blog it's wrong, but when Kebabbert posts to blogs it's good?

No, wrong again Kraftman. If you read my text, I actually say: "on that blog there is a link to RESEARCH PAPER". So I mean that you should go to that blog, to see the actual research papers. Of course I could have posted the link directly to the research paper, would that have been better?

Of course it is not credible to post to blogs. But if the blog links to research papers then you can post to that blog. Or if the blog links to for instance, official benchmarks. It is not necessary to link directly to the research paper or the official benchmark.

Jesus Kraftman, we had this discussion before. Earlier I posted to a Sun blog with links to official SAP benchmarks (Solaris wins over Linux) on www.sap.com, but you said something like: the SAP benchmarks where FUD and created by Sun. You said that SAP have partnership with Sun and therefore SAP favours Solaris in official benchmarks. I showed you links that SAP have partnership with several Linux companies - so why did SAP not favour all Linux companies? Jesus Kraftman.

When Linux wins, everything is good. It does not matter if Linux uses gcc v4.xx 64bit vs OpenSolaris uses different gcc v3.xx 32 bit - you think that are good benchmarks and dont complain. But when Solaris wins, that is bad offical benchmark published by SAP and you say companies favour Sun and it is FUD benchmark. Unbelievable logic.

Kebabbert wrote:
"I have also posted several research papers which backs up my claim about ZFS giving good protection, whereas common filesystems (including Raid-5 and raid-6) do not offer good data protection.

Do you want me to repost those research papers for you?"

I'd love to you repost them. Btw. I want to see proofs there backing all you have claimed before.

Jesus Kraftman. If you had read my posts, then you would have seen those research papers. I do not FUD. Read this post again if you want to see some research papers. I have more research papers about data corruption that I can post if anyone asks me.

http://www.phoronix.com/forums/showpost.php?p=139501&postcount=44

FUD. I'm claiming your not posting to papers which backups your claims.

Fine. I understand I FUDs a lot, in your reality. But, you on the other hand have never linked to any research papers or almost no credible links at all. And you have CONFESSED you do FUD. So, really, I dont really understand how you can accuse me of FUDing? (But, there are lots of things I dont understand about you). So it is ok if you think I FUD, especially as you can not prove that I FUD or lie. It is just more FUD from you, about me.

But I can prove that you FUD, I just link to the post where you confess you are a FUDer. Done. Kraftman = FUD and lies.

[smitty3268]

Top500. Jesus not that one again. I have posted ~10 times about top500 and explained how top500 does not count.

LOL. I have to laugh at that, because it's exactly the same thing you've done to others.

Specialized hardware is easy to do. Specialized kernel is easy to do.

You're wrong about that, incredible amounts of research, effort, and money go into doing those things.

[kebabbert]

Kebabbert wrote:
"You even posted a benchmark where one Linux fanboy compared one old 800 MHz sparc Solaris vs a intel dual core 2.4GHz Linux and you think that is a good benchmark because Linux won. "

Yes, and you even posted two SAP unrelated papers, how is it different?

Again, Solaris used slower hardware, slower CPUs, slower RAM sticks. Solaris won over Linux thanx to higher cpu utilization. Solaris used the cpus better, and could win. In other words: Solaris scaled better than Linux.

The SAP benchmark does not need 128GB RAM to run at full speed. I can email to SAP and ask how many GB RAM the SAP benchmark needs. Maybe it is 8GB RAM or 12GB?

If you dont see the difference between benchmarks

A) Solaris wins on slightly slower hardware 2.6 GHz vs Linux 2.8 GHz

B) Solaris looses on 800 Mhz SPARC vs Linux dual core 2.4GHz

Then there is something wrong with your logic. Sorry, but I can not help you. You need professional help by a psychiatrist or something similar. I know Math and Comp sci, not psychiatry. I can not help you over the internet with your pyschic problems, sorry.

Papers, please. Linux dev said Bonwick is a FUDer and a lier. You're lying now saying Bonwick is not making things up nor lie.

Jesus Kraftman. There IS something wrong with your logic. You can not go on like that, that is not constructive discussion. You are just trying to evade the issue. If you use that non constructive technique, I can do the same as you do. Then maybe you see how idiotic it looks like when someone does to you, what you do to them?


Papers please. I want to see research papers by professors, saying that Bonwick is a FUDer and Liar. Otherwise you are lying about Bonwick.

You say I FUD a lot. Papers please. Otherwise you lie.

You say Linux scales well. Papers please. Otherwise you lie.

You say Linux is stable. Papers please. Otherwise you lie.

You say whatever or anything. Papers please. Otherwise you lie.


Does not this technique you use, sound quite idiotic, you think? It sounds idiotic when I do the same thing to you, but it does not sound idiotic when you do this to others? Jesus Kraftman. Seriously, you sound like a fourth grader. Your logic is weird.

How old are you? Seriously. Are you like 15 years? If you are, then it explains everything, why you dont know anything about research, or how to establish proofs, or how to study at university, and explains your twisted logic that just sounds idiotic in many aspects. Seriously. I have never met an adult reasoning like you. I mean it. How old are you, Kraftman? This is a serious question. Are you under 20 years?

[kebabbert]

[QUOTE=smitty3268;140991]LOL. I have to laugh at that, because it's exactly the same thing you've done to others.
I did not understand this one. I explained that, for various reasons, top500 does not say much about a technique or OS that is used. PowerPC at 750MHz is the 5th best CPU in the world you think? No? Good.

You're wrong about that, incredible amounts of research, effort, and money go into doing those things.

No, I am correct again, and you are wrong.

It is much easier to do one thing that is specializing than to do a general purpose thing. Study some computer science and you will see.

For instance, which is most difficult to reach high performance: a general purpose CPU or a specialized simple GPU? It is the same with RISC and CISC. Or with DSP. Again, study some more, instead of writing down weird things.

To do one thing well, is easier to do than to excel at many different things. Common sense. Or, study some more.

[bewst]

RAID tests

I don't think ZFS was designed with this test in mind: one laptop hdd.
The test should be done with multiple hdd arrays...

I have some reasonably current speed numbers here, for anyone who cares about the actual results. Obviously it's not the same comparison. ZFS-Fuse has come a long way since then, apparently, and I didn't test any EXT filesystems.

[smitty3268]

Jesus Kraftman. If you had read my posts, then you would have seen those research papers. I do not FUD. Read this post again if you want to see some research papers. I have more research papers about data corruption that I can post if anyone asks me.
http://www.phoronix.com/forums/showp...1&postcount=44

So, just for fun, I decided to actually look at those "papers" you linked to. I know you're trolling and will just ignore this, but it's getting kind of fun to poke you.

The senior consultant wrote in a follow up article
http://www.enterprisestorageforum.co...le.php/3749926

"If you disagree [that Linux does not scale storagewise], try it yourself. Go mkfs a 500 TB ext-3/4 or other Linux file system, fill it up with multiple streams of data, add/remove files for a few months with, say, 20 GB/sec of bandwidth from a single large SMP server and crash the system and fsck it and tell me how long it takes. Does the I/O performance stay consistent during that few months of adding and removing files? Does the file system perform well with 1 million files in a single directory and 100 million files in the file system? My guess is the exercise would prove my point: Linux file systems have scaling issues that need to be addressed before 100 TB environments become commonplace. Addressing them now without rancor just might make Linux everything its proponents have hoped for."

Let me say you this. Regarding the current unstability of BTRFS and all bugs and so on, I doubt BTRFS does handle this situation.

So, first you post a 2.5 year old article that's just someone's personal opinion/experience with ext (no benchmarks included). Then you go on to say that therefore btrfs must still suck 2 and a half years later, when it was specifically created to fix the very problems you're pointing out that ext3/4 had.

Ok, whatever... Maybe some of the rest of your post will make more sense.

I doubt this. ZFS is developed by a whole team that has vast experience of storage and all the troubles that arise. BTRFS seems to be developed by one guy who probably dont know what is important in Enterprise storage. But the Sun guys knows what is important:

http://blogs.sun.com/perrin/entry/the_lumberjack

"So that's the ZFS ZIL in a nutshell. It's design was guided by previous years of frustration with UFS logging. We knew it had to be very fast as synchronous semantics are critical to database performance. We certainly learnt from previous mistakes."

How the heck do you expect that single BTRFS guy to know what is important? Is he all knowing? He knows as much as the whole Solaris developer team combined with the Enterprise Storage team? Is he best in the world?

So first, you obviously don't know that the btrfs guy was actually a zfs developer before he left sun. So if Sun developers on ZFS know what they're doing, then so does this guy. And you point to a Sun employees blog to show that he knows what is important. LOL, there's probably a thousand linux developer blogs out there like that. That's certainly no proof of anything. And then you make a point of saying that ZFS was designed with previous mistakes in mind. HA HA HA HA. Well, yeah, that's true of pretty much every new filesystem, except the experimental or research ones. The Btrfs developer has even explicitly said that when he designed btrfs he used the knowledge he learned while working on zfs to do certain things in better ways.

Still waiting for the good stuff... Maybe it's coming soon?

When you talk about Moore's law
"Moore's law is about transistor density on silicon. It has nothing to do with disk space."

Let us read more on this law, regarding hard drives part:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Moore%27s_law

It turns out that hard drives have the same development, called Kryder's law:
"A similar law [as Moore's law] (sometimes called Kryder's Law) has held for hard disk storage cost per unit of information"

And there is a article in "Scientific American" about Kryder's law:

http://www.scientificamerican.com/ar...id=kryders-law

Which says that "says that magnetic disk areal storage density doubles annually"

Ok, some posts on stuff that doesn't really apply to anything in your argument... You realize that "storage density" doesn't matter when it comes to the size of a file system, right? That only matters for manufacturers. "Storage capacity" is what a file system needs to worry about, and as sbergman so correctly proved, it does not follow the same pattern of growth that you seem to think it does. And even if it did, that would still be decades away from going 128 bit. And furthermore, ZFS capacity is limited to only 64 bits, with the other 64 going to volume mgmt, so your entire 128 bits is necessary argument falls flat on it's face.

Exponential growth is a very bad thing, it grows extremely fast. It actually, grows exponentially.

Ah, this is getting funnier by the quote. Yes, exponential growth grows exponentially. You're correct about that. Quite redundantly correct.

Wrong again. Raid5&6 does not do a pretty good job at data integrity.

Jesus, give me strength. Why do I must correct all Linux people's misunderstandings all the time? Why do they think "ZFS and DTrace are slightly more polished than Linux counter parts"?

Look. Raid5 & 6 sucks big time. Your data is not safe with those. Here are some articles. Read them and please stop say things that are not true.

http://www.cs.wisc.edu/adsl/Publicat...ion-fast08.pdf

"Detecting and recovering from data corruption requires protection techniques beyond those provided by the disk drive. In fact, basic protection schemes such as RAID [13] may also be unable to detect these problems.
..
As we discuss later, checksums do not protect against all forms of corruption"

From above, you can not just add some checksums all over the place into BTRFS and expect to get data integrity. Ok? Not even mature techniques as Raid are safe (which many falsely believe). Do you finally understand now why I doubt BTRFS to be safe? Why must I educate all these Linux people all the time? *sigh*

..... (lots of links and rambling here) ....

Ok, finally some actual papers. Although they don't seem to show what you think they show. What they say is that even RAID systems can have silent faults, and this is true. I believe it. None of them seem to have anything to say about ZFS, though, except that it injected checksums which are periodically checked for faults. And then you go on to say that BTRFS must suck, even though it was specifically created by a former ZFS dev to also be safe with data in the same way.

And besides, I dont understand the fuss about layering violation. If ZFS is best on the market, it is. I do not care if it is written in pascal, has layering violation, is painted blue or whatever as long as it is best and protects your data. Would you prefer to use an inferior filesystem that does not protect your data, but has four layers instead of three layers?

Bonwick, the archictect behind ZFS explains that ZFS only has fewer layers (ZFS scrapped unnecessary layers that legacy filesystems have) but ZFS is still layered.
http://blogs.sun.com/bonwick/entry/r...ring_violation

Another Sun employee blog. Yawn, I'm starting to get a little tired, but i'll see if i can try to make it to the end of your massive post. Anyway, layering violations aren't something end users are concerned about (and in the blog he pretty much admits to it, and then claims that they did so for a good reason). They impact maintainability, and bloat, and how much work it is to integrate into the kernel. So it's a completely valid argument against adding it to the linux kernel, but not really something an enduser like yourself would necessarily worry about. Except that it could potentially bring in more bugs into the implementation than a cleaner design might because of the extra work needed.

I doubt BTRFS even handles as many discs and reaches the speed that ZFS does, today. BTRFS is too buggy. The best ZFS machine will outclass the best BTRFS machine by a large margin. BTRFS seems to be targeted to desktops. Not Enterprise halls.

Lots of big claims there, but it's very obvious you're just making all those claims off the top of your head without a shred of reasoning or proof. You clearly haven't ever tried btrfs yourself and know virtually nothing about it, yet you claim it's targeted for desktops (Oracle might disagree), too buggy (which problems have you run into again? and it just came out of beta like a week ago i think, so it's expected to have bugs until it stabilizes), and you "doubt" it's as fast (where's the actual proof?).

Show me a BTRFS machine that beats this ZFS machine (look at the right column)

http://blogs.sun.com/brendan/entry/m...rage_7410_perf

I don't have access to hardware like that, so I can't say. But you've certainly not shown any proof that ZFS is faster. Try putting btrfs on that machine, test it, and then display the results. Don't merely claim it must be true because you think it should be. We clearly saw that on low end hardware, ZFS performance sucked in comparison to btrfs. So you're saying that it's better on high end hardware without any proof at all that that's the case. How do we know that btrfs doesn't scale up just as well? Not that I'm saying it does, just give me proof rather than baseless claims when it's clear you've never tried it out yourself.

As Solaris. They win by a large margin in the Enterprise halls. They are stable. Safe. Not unstable as Linux. Do you want to see links where Linux companies increase their work load much, and must switch to for instance, Solaris?

Those examples work both ways. Didn't the NYSE recently switch from Unix to Red Hat, and that's about as mission critical as things come. From everything I've heard, they've been extremely happy with Linux since the switch.

Hilarious.

Yeah, you took the words right out of my mouth.

Hopefully i didn't miss anything in your post, it's late and it took me a while to go through all of it. I'm sure you'll respond to this with another 50 links that repeat the same stuff we just went over, but whatever.

[kebabbert]

No, no, no you lie, you are under heavy fudding masturbation! you don't even know what you have written.

Maybe you dont know what I have written?

(opinion)In my opinion, if Oracle really wants to bet on BTRFS, Oracle should have assigned a whole team of developers to BTRFS (end opinion).

True. That is my OPINION.

(assertion, fud begins) 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? (end assertion, fud ends)

False.

The part "Oracle is not interested in BTRFS" is only speculation. I mix assertions with speculations here. I find it hard to write [assertion] tags and [speculation] tags in every sentence - no one does that. And if you complain on me not doing that - why dont you complain on the Linux fanboys here deliberately lying and FUDing and making things up - without ever giving any credible links at all? Yes, one CONFESSED he FUD. Another CONFESSED he made things up. Another most probably LIED, which I proved. And you dont complain on them. And when I talk about an interview I read then you accuse me of lying. Great.

There is no mention to Chris Mason interview, there is a clear intention to undervalue btrfs development.

It dependence on how you look at it.

I only quote BTRFS main architect, when he said he was the only full time paid developer at Oracle. Sure, there are probably more developers at other places - I have never questioned that. The thing is, Oracle had at that time, only one full time developer. That does not sound as a serious investment to me from Oracle. If you want me shut up about this fact about this single developer, then "yes, I undervalue BTRFS development" at Oracle. If censorship is ok with you, then "yes".

I bet you want me to shut up about negative things about Linux too, yes? Because when I post negative comments from Linus Torvalds, then "my intention is to undervalue Linux"? I must not post any negative things at all, whereas Kraftman can FUD and lie as much as he wants, yes?

Or, you could welcome both negative and positive comments and void censorship. As I do. I want to see negative credible articles about Solaris too. Please post them. I have asked about this many times.

There is no earlier message speaking about one full time developer and lot of other devs, there is no earlier message about Chris Mason interview. You obviously have no idea how btrfs development is going. So You fud.

As I said, I read in a link given somewhere here in the forum that Chris Mason said he was the ONLY FULL TIME PAID DEVELOPER AT ORACLE WORKING ON BTRFS. I do not make this up or lie about this. I have briefly looked for the link, but can not find it.

But here is another link from just one week ago (2010-07-30). It seems there are now three full time paid developers. Two of them at Oracle, one of them being Chris Mason, I dont know the other one at Oracle. Anyway, it is very probable that in my older link I was given here, it was only Chris Mason who was full time at Oracle. Now there are two full time developers at Oracle. Hardly a "team" working at Oracle. So, again, I do not lie nor FUD. Everything I post, I have read somewhere by credible people: Chris Mason, Linus Torvalds, Andrew Morton, researchers, etc. I never make up false things just as some Linux guys do.

http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Btrfs_in_Fedora_13

Q: How many developers are working on Btrfs full time from Red Hat? What do they focus on?
A: Just me. I focus on anything and everything that needs to be done. The other two full time developers are from Oracle.

Fud is not about lying intentionally, is more like spreading false information because of ignorance or disrespect about something

Please tell me. What is the difference of telling something false, or to lie? It is the same thing. If I tell you false things, then I lie. If I lie, then I tell you false things. They are equivalent.


And as I wrote:

http://www.phoronix.com/forums/showpost.php?p=140352&postcount=110

"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"