Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

Eight-Way BSD & Linux OS Comparison

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

  • #21
    regarding ext4 being insecure:

    Originally posted by Sergio View Post
    I don't get it. The link is to some tests that show that performance on a database improves if you turn off barriers on ext4. I don't understand how you can take that fact and use it to conclude that ext4 is inherently unsafe.

    Comment


    • #22
      Originally posted by Sergio View Post
      Can you be more specific? I don't see any security issues there. Only a db specific fs benchmark of 3.2 kernel. That isn't worth much really.

      Comment


      • #23
        Originally posted by enfocomp View Post
        Surprised to see that Ubuntu is about the same speed, if not faster, then MINT. I'm glad that MINT was included, because lots of people still have the perception that MINT is substantially faster than Ubuntu, but these results prove otherwise. It seems that Ubuntu and Unity (version 7) are not the pile of crap that some people will lead you to believe!
        Mint uses the very same software than Ubuntu. The only difference is the GUI: Compiz + Unity on Ubuntu vs Mutter + Gnome-Shell on Mint. The 3D graphics is run in full screen and since Ubuntu fixed their unredirect bug, there is absolutely no chance that there might be any difference between those two. What this benchmark doesn't test, however, is whether Ubuntu feels sluggish or something like that. I don't know, the last one I tested was 12.04.
        Last edited by oleid; 05-28-2013, 01:27 AM.

        Comment


        • #24
          Originally posted by RahulSundaram View Post
          Can you be more specific? I don't see any security issues there. Only a db specific fs benchmark of 3.2 kernel. That isn't worth much really.
          The only thing he might be referring to is the "nobarrier" option. Yet, even then his statement makes no sense.

          Comment


          • #25
            Originally posted by CthuIhux
            Problem is BSD not just a millisecond slower then Linux, it has proven to be as much as 500 times slower then Linux in many areas not tested in this benchmarks. [...]
            *yawn*

            I know that you are the anti-BSD-troll here... but, well.... One whole page of senseless comments about how bad BSD is? Oh come on! That's so boring...
            At least confirm your statement from above, if you can -- which I doubt --, so that the people here don't fall asleep.

            Comment


            • #26
              Originally posted by i386reaper
              Quite an amusing read, knowing that the page is full of irony...

              Comment


              • #27
                Originally posted by Sergio View Post
                Look at those curves, the test is flawed. BSD on ZFS and Linuxes on EXT4 are completely flat and capped at exactly the same value, this clearly indicates some limitation of his virtualization environment.
                And then the performance explodes on UFS, Hammer and EXTnobarrier. There must be some disk operation that is capped on the VM that only Ext4 and ZFS use.

                Comment


                • #28
                  Originally posted by talvik View Post
                  Look at those curves, the test is flawed. BSD on ZFS and Linuxes on EXT4 are completely flat and capped at exactly the same value, this clearly indicates some limitation of his virtualization environment.
                  And then the performance explodes on UFS, Hammer and EXTnobarrier. There must be some disk operation that is capped on the VM that only Ext4 and ZFS use.
                  Benchmarks really shouldn't be preformed in VM.

                  Comment


                  • #29
                    Originally posted by CthuIhux
                    Quoting Obscure, Untrusted sources written by liars aren't going to make your BSD FUDS more valid.
                    The interesting thing is that those liars he is quoting, didn't actually say anything bad, SECURITY WISE **OR** DATA INTEGRITY WISE about ext4 (some people really should think about terminology before spouting crap though, "insecure" relates to security, not data reliability). The only bad thing the linked page had to say about it was related to PERFORMANCE. The dangerous thing they were talking about was INTENTIONAL DANGER that they introduced themselves, and ACKNOWLEDGED to have introduced themself. That would be the nobarrier option, which is ***NEITHER DEFAULT NOR RECOMMENDED***.

                    Comment


                    • #30
                      Originally posted by LightBit View Post
                      Benchmarks really shouldn't be preformed in VM.
                      I tried the same benchmark Ubuntu ext4 in bare metal and got similar results, completely flat and capped performance. While running the resource usage is near zero IO, iowait and CPU.
                      Then I ran wheezy ext4 inside vbox, the performance was 3x to 5x faster than on bare metal. 3x better than the results in that bench.

                      There is clearly a bottleneck somewhere... and it's not in the VM.

                      Comment

                      Working...
                      X