Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

NetBSD 6.0 Is On Approach With New Features

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

  • #16
    Originally posted by LightBit View Post
    Linux lacks simplicity and stability in some cases.
    Nope. It's rock stable compared to other operating systems and it's very simple and flexible. Just use proper distribution.

    Comment


    • #17
      Originally posted by uid313 View Post
      Why would *BSD be a better server than Linux?
      It's not and it's proven by market share.

      Comment


      • #18
        Originally posted by kraftman View Post
        Nope. It's rock stable compared to other operating systems and it's very simple and flexible. Just use proper distribution.
        ext2 is asynchronous by default -> not reliable
        Data loss on power failure or crash with ext4, especially early versions (like 2.6.30).

        Compare /etc.

        Comment


        • #19
          Originally posted by kraftman View Post
          It's not and it's proven by market share.
          This is not proof.
          *BSD might be better server than Linux, because it's more careful with your data ... It doesn't risk for better performance.

          Comment


          • #20
            Why would *BSD be a better server than Linux?
            Except the first sentence, I wasn't talking about linux. never said that one of the BSDs are a better server because I have the coherence that a tool fits the job and not the other way ... and that includes the operating system itself.
            In my own experience and taste, I found that the features of the system are a big PLUS on certain situations ... (ZFS, DTrace, Jails, pf, resource containers, the layout of the base system and ports, etc etc etc)

            *BSD might be better server than Linux, because it's more careful with your data ... It doesn't risk for better performance.
            Which filesystems are you comparing ?

            Comment


            • #21
              Originally posted by vertexSymphony View Post
              Which filesystems are you comparing ?
              ext2 (async) vs ufs (sync)
              ext4 vs ufs

              Comment


              • #22
                Originally posted by LightBit View Post
                ext2 (async) vs ufs (sync)
                ext4 vs ufs
                UFS (I assume UFS2?) with which features enabled? (softupdates, journaling,etc ) ...comparing UFS2 against ext2 is unfair and shouldn't even be mentioned.
                And sorry, but UFS, even with journaling is not rock-solid ... if you really need that robustness (even if it's weird, because in practically everywhere you usually have UPS units), ZFS might be a better choice, but this is a different beast on his own and should be compared to a similar like btrfs.

                Comment


                • #23
                  Originally posted by vertexSymphony View Post
                  UFS (I assume UFS2?) with which features enabled? (softupdates, journaling,etc ) ...comparing UFS2 against ext2 is unfair and shouldn't even be mentioned.
                  And sorry, but UFS, even with journaling is not rock-solid ... if you really need that robustness (even if it's weird, because in practically everywhere you usually have UPS units), ZFS might be a better choice, but this is a different beast on his own and should be compared to a similar like btrfs.
                  There are no reliability differences between UFS1 and UFS2 (without additional features).
                  With no features (like softupdates, journaling) enabled it's more reliable. Sync file systems are far more reliable.
                  UFS is still more solid than ext*. And there is also hammerfs.
                  Why comparing UFS2 (without softupdates or journaling) against ext2 is unfair?

                  Comment


                  • #24
                    Originally posted by LightBit View Post
                    ext2 is asynchronous by default -> not reliable
                    Data loss on power failure or crash with ext4, especially early versions (like 2.6.30).

                    Compare /etc.
                    Data loss on BSD file systems as well. On Linux you have much better choice.

                    Comment


                    • #25
                      Originally posted by LightBit View Post
                      This is not proof.
                      *BSD might be better server than Linux, because it's more careful with your data ... It doesn't risk for better performance.
                      It's not more careful. Linux also doesn't risk stability for performance, but it's a matter of configuration. You can use Ext3/4 with safe options and you're done.

                      Comment


                      • #26
                        Originally posted by kraftman View Post
                        Data loss on BSD file systems as well. On Linux you have much better choice.
                        Data loss on BSD file systems is less likely than on Linux. I had corrupted ext2 (fsck failed to fix it) and lost data on ext4.
                        What better choice? btrfs?

                        Comment


                        • #27
                          Originally posted by kraftman View Post
                          It's not more careful. Linux also doesn't risk stability for performance, but it's a matter of configuration. You can use Ext3/4 with safe options and you're done.
                          Only truly safe option is sync, which is not available for ext3/4.

                          Comment


                          • #28
                            Originally posted by LightBit View Post
                            Only truly safe option is sync, which is not available for ext3/4.
                            There are options for immediate write on both ext3 and 4. Not only that, but in every configuration I have ever known ext4 has a huge performance advantage over any version of UFS safe options or not.

                            Comment


                            • #29
                              Originally posted by LightBit View Post
                              Data loss on BSD file systems is less likely than on Linux. I had corrupted ext2 (fsck failed to fix it) and lost data on ext4.
                              What better choice? btrfs?
                              No, it's not more likely on Linux. BSD file systems suck and ext2 sucks as well... Use Ext 3 or 4 with safe mount options. There is sync in ext4...
                              Last edited by kraftman; 06-02-2012, 03:41 AM.

                              Comment


                              • #30
                                Originally posted by kraftman View Post
                                No, it's not more likely on Linux. BSD file systems suck and ext2 sucks as well... Use Ext 3 or 4 with safe mount options. There is sync in ext4...
                                100% agree.

                                Comment

                                Working...
                                X