Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

Tuxera Claims NTFS Is The Fastest File-System For Linux

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

  • Originally posted by kraftman View Post
    Wrong. While benchmarks were showing some numbers your conclusions were stupid and irrelevant. I didn't say a sap benchmark is a lie or FUD. You're just manipulating.
    You are saying that SAP benches should be ignored because it is SUN propaganda and not to be trusted. Here is one post where you say that
    http://phoronix.com/forums/showthrea...096#post104096



    I've showed you link where Linux devs says Bonwick (from SUN) does FUD. That's enough.
    Bonwick (the creator of ZFS) did not FUD. He said that Linux scales bad, and he is correct. He talked about SMP vs HPC. And there are no big Linux SMP servers. The biggest Linux SMP server is 8 cpus, as I know. There are no bigger, as I know. Why is that? Because Linux is bad on SMP servers. Show me a SMP server with more than 8 cpus, if you can. Go ahead.

    Basically SMP is one big server with as many as 64 cpus. IBM AIX and HP-UX and Solaris servers are SMP servers with 64 cpus. IBM biggest Unix box, has only 32 POWER7 cpus because IBM AIX does not scale well enough in SMP servers.

    HPC is a large cluster (a network with lots of PCs) and Linux scales very good on a cluster. There are large clusters, for instance SGI Altix server with 1024 cores. But it is easy to scale on a cluster.

    When people say Linux scales bad, they are refering to SMP servers that are used in the Enterprise. There are no big SMP servers running Linux successfully. There are only Linux clusters in the market today.

    Even Linux scaling experts from RedHat, etc said that Linux scales very well in a cluster (for instance, Google has 10.000 nodes in a network) but they also admitted that Linux scales bad on SMP servers. They said "the true strength of Linux is horizontal scaling" and they talked about Google's big cluster. You want to see the article by the Linux scaling experts from RedHat, and other Linux companies?

    Why are there no big SMP Linux servers on the market? Because Linux scales bad on SMP servers. The SMP server market belongs to Enterprise Unix: AIX, Solaris, HP-UX, IBM Mainframes, etc.



    I showed you papers. Even in this thread. You claimed lots of things, most of it were lies.
    I am talking about RESEARCH papers. You showed White papers. I can show you white paper where Microsoft says that Linux is much more expensive than Windows. The reason? Linux is run on an IBM Mainframe costing million dollars, and Windows is run on a PC, but this fact is hidden and I had to dig to find this fact.



    Are you able to point to that? Maybe I meant it scales to 64 CPUs, but then it sucks?
    Nope, you did not say that. You dont remember what you said? There were lot of people explaining that Solaris servers where sold with 106 cpus, and 144 cpus and still you rejected all of us and you stubbornly said:
    http://phoronix.com/forums/showthrea...777#post142777
    "...Solaris can scale only up to 64 physical CPUs on a single machine while Linux can scale up to 4096 physical CPUs. I don't care about hyper threading etc. I also don't care I could buy a [Solaris] 106 CPUs server years ago and I don't care how many threads Solaris sees..."



    Nope, but saying Linux doesn't scale makes you a lier and FUDer. You've never gave any papers showing that Linux doesn't scale.
    There is no research on this, as I know of. But I have many times explained the difference between scaling on a single huge server (HPC) and scaling on a cluster. Linux scales very well in a cluster, everyone agrees on this. But Linux scales bad on a SMP server, even RedHat scaling experts agree on this.

    If Linux scales well on a SMP server, as you claim: show me a big Linux SMP server that is sold on the market. SMP servers are traditionally for Enterprise use and they cost very much. For instance, IBMs AIX server P595 costed 35 million USD when they got the TPC-C record earlier (until Oracle took the record). If Linux scales good on a single huge server, then everyone should buy cheap Linux SMP servers instead of forcing to buy expensive gear from IBM, HP, Oracle. So, where is the Linux SMP servers with 32 cpus? Show me. There are none. Why?



    The lies.
    I have showed you white papers earlier, and you rejected my white papers. I also showed you research papers, PhD thesis, etc. You have never showed me any research papers. If you did, link to that post here, and I will apologize. Go ahead, show me the post where you link to research papers. If you can not post such a link, then I am talking truth, and it is you that is the liar.



    Haha, but I wanted papers which backup your claims. You were FUDing and lying a lot thus I was asking for papers.
    I did not FUD, nor lie. I posted lot of research papers, but you denied them to exist. I can link to posts where I post research papers, and where you just ignored them. Do you want me to link to those posts? You say something like "no, there are no research papers, where are them, show me the papers". And I have posted those research papers repeatedly, but still you deny them.


    You're still lying, because I don't pretend I don't see the paper. While I was talking about sdc this sounds strange.
    You pretended to not see all the research papers I posted to. I am not lying, you just ignored my posts and asked me to post research papers. Do you want me to quote you on this?



    This time you made some little research.
    What research? Every research paper I posted here, are the same I posted in the old thread. There are no new research papers in this thread. It is the same research papers I posted again and again. I have not looked for new research papers, it is the same old papers I always posted (that you ignored).

    Comment


    • Originally posted by kebabbert View Post
      It is a great feature. Or is it? As I have said, all filesystems and hardware raid tries to give data safety, but no one succeeds according to research. Hans Reiser tried heavily to give data safety, but failed. So, this "block I/O data integrity infrastructure" - is it safe? Have the engineers succeeded? Are there research on this? Lack of research does not prove it to be safe.
      Yeah, but this research was done, before someone submited patches. I believe they succeeded.

      If I have an antivirus program, and it never trigger warnings - does it mean I never get virus, or does it mean the antivirus program is bad? Lack of warnings does not mean I am completely safe. Maybe there are viruses, that my computer does not notice? Lack of research does not prove something is safe.
      Like I said many times it's matter of believing. I have to believe the research is still right about ZFS etc.

      Comment


      • Originally posted by kebabbert View Post
        You are saying that SAP benches should be ignored because it is SUN propaganda and not to be trusted. Here is one post where you say that
        http://phoronix.com/forums/showthrea...096#post104096
        I was talking about sun's blog. It's very sad you have problems with obvious things.

        Bonwick (the creator of ZFS) did not FUD. He said that Linux scales bad, and he is correct. He talked about SMP vs HPC. And there are no big Linux SMP servers. The biggest Linux SMP server is 8 cpus, as I know. There are no bigger, as I know. Why is that? Because Linux is bad on SMP servers. Show me a SMP server with more than 8 cpus, if you can. Go ahead.
        He did FUD according to Linux dev response. I also consider he did FUD. He wasn't correct saying Linux scales bad. Linux dev said Linux scales crap out of Solaris, so I believe him. You're still lying: "The biggest Linux SMP server is 8 cpus, as I know. There are no bigger, as I know." You gave a SAP paper where there's a 48 core SMP Linux system, so you knew about this, so you're lying.

        Basically SMP is one big server with as many as 64 cpus. IBM AIX and HP-UX and Solaris servers are SMP servers with 64 cpus. IBM biggest Unix box, has only 32 POWER7 cpus because IBM AIX does not scale well enough in SMP servers.
        Like I said before.

        HPC is a large cluster (a network with lots of PCs) and Linux scales very good on a cluster. There are large clusters, for instance SGI Altix server with 1024 cores. But it is easy to scale on a cluster.
        There's even bigger - 2048 core machine and the funny thing a single Linux kernel is running on it.

        When people say Linux scales bad, they are refering to SMP servers that are used in the Enterprise. There are no big SMP servers running Linux successfully. There are only Linux clusters in the market today.
        You're data is very old. You're still talking about Linux 2.4.

        Even Linux scaling experts from RedHat, etc said that Linux scales very well in a cluster (for instance, Google has 10.000 nodes in a network) but they also admitted that Linux scales bad on SMP servers. They said "the true strength of Linux is horizontal scaling" and they talked about Google's big cluster. You want to see the article by the Linux scaling experts from RedHat, and other Linux companies?
        The same as above.

        Why are there no big SMP Linux servers on the market? Because Linux scales bad on SMP servers. The SMP server market belongs to Enterprise Unix: AIX, Solaris, HP-UX, IBM Mainframes, etc.
        Oh, there are. Like those in SAP benchmarks. Btw. do you have any info about market share?

        I am talking about RESEARCH papers. You showed White papers. I can show you white paper where Microsoft says that Linux is much more expensive than Windows. The reason? Linux is run on an IBM Mainframe costing million dollars, and Windows is run on a PC, but this fact is hidden and I had to dig to find this fact.
        So, you were lying saying I didn't show you the papers? If you're aware such comparision is meaningles then why are you doing the same regarding SMP scaling?

        Nope, you did not say that. You dont remember what you said? There were lot of people explaining that Solaris servers where sold with 106 cpus, and 144 cpus and still you rejected all of us and you stubbornly said:
        http://phoronix.com/forums/showthrea...777#post142777
        "...Solaris can scale only up to 64 physical CPUs on a single machine while Linux can scale up to 4096 physical CPUs. I don't care about hyper threading etc. I also don't care I could buy a [Solaris] 106 CPUs server years ago and I don't care how many threads Solaris sees..."
        I corrected myself later saying I was according to h-online.

        http://phoronix.com/forums/showthrea...290#post143290

        There is no research on this, as I know of. But I have many times explained the difference between scaling on a single huge server (HPC) and scaling on a cluster. Linux scales very well in a cluster, everyone agrees on this. But Linux scales bad on a SMP server, even RedHat scaling experts agree on this.
        Still, an old data.

        If Linux scales well on a SMP server, as you claim: show me a big Linux SMP server that is sold on the market. SMP servers are traditionally for Enterprise use and they cost very much. For instance, IBMs AIX server P595 costed 35 million USD when they got the TPC-C record earlier (until Oracle took the record). If Linux scales good on a single huge server, then everyone should buy cheap Linux SMP servers instead of forcing to buy expensive gear from IBM, HP, Oracle. So, where is the Linux SMP servers with 32 cpus? Show me. There are none. Why?
        Like before, there's even one in your SAP papers 48 cores SMP Linux machine.

        I have showed you white papers earlier, and you rejected my white papers.
        I probably rejected your idiotic conclusions.

        I also showed you research papers, PhD thesis, etc. You have never showed me any research papers. If you did, link to that post here, and I will apologize. Go ahead, show me the post where you link to research papers. If you can not post such a link, then I am talking truth, and it is you that is the liar.
        Show me I was talking about research papers and not about white papers.

        I did not FUD, nor lie. I posted lot of research papers, but you denied them to exist. I can link to posts where I post research papers, and where you just ignored them. Do you want me to link to those posts? You say something like "no, there are no research papers, where are them, show me the papers". And I have posted those research papers repeatedly, but still you deny them.
        I wanted papers which backup your claims like I said many times. However, you lie a lot.

        You pretended to not see all the research papers I posted to. I am not lying, you just ignored my posts and asked me to post research papers. Do you want me to quote you on this?
        Go ahead and show me the papers which proves your claims.

        What research? Every research paper I posted here, are the same I posted in the old thread. There are no new research papers in this thread. It is the same research papers I posted again and again. I have not looked for new research papers, it is the same old papers I always posted (that you ignored).
        Everything's good?

        Comment


        • Originally posted by kraftman View Post
          You're still lying: "The biggest Linux SMP server is 8 cpus, as I know. There are no bigger, as I know." You gave a SAP paper where there's a 48 core SMP Linux system, so you knew about this, so you're lying.
          I'm sorry, my fault. It has only 8CPUs, so here's a correct example:

          http://www.hp.com/techservers/hpccn/...AST_Bigtux.pdf

          You knew about this too, so what I wrote is correct.

          Comment


          • I'm confused X.x 48 cores is trivial these days 12 cores per die is off the shelf stuff... and quad socket mobos aren't that uncommon. I even know a fellow that has at 32 core box with quad channel ram on a relativly light budget as well its quite a beast for a serverish/desktop.

            And anyone wanting data integrity is going to be running raid as there isn't anything saying that a whole drive couldn't go kaput. noone will rely on the FS alone to save them...

            Comment


            • Originally posted by cb88 View Post
              And anyone wanting data integrity is going to be running raid as there isn't anything saying that a whole drive couldn't go kaput. noone will rely on the FS alone to save them...
              The point isn't really for the FS alone to save you from a hardware failure, it's that there are failure modes in which you won't even know that a failure happened unless something is hashing the data on a regular basis. It doesn't have to be the filesystem, but that's arguably a reasonable place to do it (and ZFS is really more like a combination of filesystem/volume management/softraid than just a FS anyway).

              Comment


              • Originally posted by cb88 View Post
                I'm confused X.x 48 cores is trivial these days 12 cores per die is off the shelf stuff... and quad socket mobos aren't that uncommon. I even know a fellow that has at 32 core box with quad channel ram on a relativly light budget as well its quite a beast for a serverish/desktop.
                Yep, but some people live in 2000.

                Comment


                • Originally posted by crazycheese View Post
                  WHERE????!
                  Is filesystem DESIGNED to withstand all those errors? Hell, NO.
                  It is like blaming Joe from Los Angeles in Fukushima crisis! He is american, and americans delivered parts to Nippon, so he is responsible for nuclear meltdown! He is NOT.
                  What is Joe responsible? To support his family and do it well! There is no point in giving every single Joe nuclear physician education to control the reactor either!

                  Projected to this "analysis", the file system should only do what filesystem should do - and do it well.
                  Crazycheese, your poor grammar leads me to think that you are from a non-english speaking region. I'm from australia, but i'm aware that in america (as per your example) there is legal precedent to indicate that if you develop parts for a purpose (such as a nuclear reactor) and they have a failure, then you can be at fault for negligence. From memory the precedent was kind-of set by a case involving buick and some wheel manufacturer.

                  Also, it might be useful for you to think about what a filesystem is. It's a component that is used by the computer to reliably read and write information in a persistent way. Hardware failures might cause the filesystem to work incorrectly, but the file-system can very feasibly be improved to get around a lot of problems.

                  Comment

                  Working...
                  X