Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

New Benchmarks Of OpenSolaris, BSD & Linux

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

  • New Benchmarks Of OpenSolaris, BSD & Linux

    Phoronix: New Benchmarks Of OpenSolaris, BSD & Linux

    Earlier today we put out benchmarks of ZFS on Linux via a native kernel module that will be made publicly available to bring this Sun/Oracle file-system over to more Linux users. Now though as a bonus we happen to have new benchmarks of the latest OpenSolaris-based distributions, including OpenSolaris, OpenIndiana, and Augustiner-Schweinshaxe, compared to PC-BSD, Fedora, and Ubuntu.

    http://www.phoronix.com/vr.php?view=15476

  • #2
    What on earth is 'Augustiner-Schweinshaxe'? Any relation to SchilliX? Completely new?

    Comment


    • #3
      Originally posted by joffe View Post
      What on earth is 'Augustiner-Schweinshaxe'? Any relation to SchilliX? Completely new?
      Yeah, it's codename for new OS derived from OpenSolaris code-base Also just happens to be one of the best names too mmmm Schweinshaxe und bier!
      Michael Larabel
      http://www.michaellarabel.com/

      Comment


      • #4
        Pic missing on the first page? Also, mute -> moot on the last page.

        Comment


        • #5
          But what about large servers ?

          You are doing single-disk performance and you say: why use ZFS ?

          Maybe because it is faster on many devices ?:

          BTRFS on Ubuntu versus ZFS on FreeBSD:
          Code:
                       ZFS              BtrFS
          1 SSD      256 MiByte/s     256 MiByte/s
          2 SSDs     505 MiByte/s     504 MiByte/s
          3 SSDs     736 MiByte/s     756 MiByte/s
          4 SSDs     952 MiByte/s     916 MiByte/s
          5 SSDs    1226 MiByte/s     986 MiByte/s
          6 SSDs    1450 MiByte/s     978 MiByte/s
          8 SSDs    1653 MiByte/s     932 MiByte/s
          16 SSDs   2750 MiByte/s     919 MiByte/s
          http://marc.info/?l=linux-btrfs&m=128101763830740&w=2

          Comment


          • #6
            But what about large servers ? [2]

            Maybe I should add something to the previous post:

            after some tuning it got much better:

            Reference figures:
            16* single disk (theoretical limit): 4092 MiByte/s
            fio data layer tests (achievable limit): 3250 MiByte/s
            ZFS performance: 2505 MiByte/s

            BtrFS figures:
            IOzone on 2.6.32: 919 MiByte/s
            fio btrfs tests on 2.6.35: 1460 MiByte/s
            IOzone on 2.6.35 with crc32c: 1250 MiByte/s
            IOzone on 2.6.35 with crc32c_intel: 1629 MiByte/s
            IOzone on 2.6.35, using -o nodatasum: 1955 MiByte/s

            But still not as fast, nodatasum is not something you do I production I assume.

            Comment


            • #7
              I would like to see benchmarks on LARGE servers. Solaris has always been targeting large servers with hundreds of CPUs and many many drives and much RAM. Linux has always been developed on desktop PCs and targeting 2-4 cpu servers.

              If there where benchmarks on large servers with many drives and many cpus, we would see that Linux is far behind Solaris.

              The above post only confirms what I say. But that is only a measly 16 disk drives involved. I would want to see benchmarks with 48 drives, or 96 drives or more.

              Comment


              • #8
                Originally posted by kebabbert View Post
                I would like to see benchmarks on LARGE servers. Solaris has always been targeting large servers with hundreds of CPUs and many many drives and much RAM. Linux has always been developed on desktop PCs and targeting 2-4 cpu servers.

                If there where benchmarks on large servers with many drives and many cpus, we would see that Linux is far behind Solaris.
                If we would see HPC benchmarks then Solaris could go home then. Wait a minute, it already did!

                The above post only confirms what I say. But that is only a measly 16 disk drives involved. I would want to see benchmarks with 48 drives, or 96 drives or more.
                It shows zfs was faster then btrfs in this configuration, nothing more.

                Comment


                • #9
                  Agree about largest clusters

                  Totally agree about the large clusters. They pretty much all run Linux or are specialized in doing HPC:

                  http://www.top500.org/stats/list/36/osfam

                  Comment


                  • #10
                    Originally posted by kraftman View Post
                    If we would see HPC benchmarks then Solaris could go home then. Wait a minute, it already did!
                    Great, show us HPC benchmark comparisons between Solaris and Linux you talk about. If you do not post them here, you are a FUDer.


                    Originally posted by kraftman View Post
                    It shows zfs was faster then btrfs in this configuration, nothing more.
                    Oh yes? Than I can say the same:

                    "The HPC benchmarks only shows Linux was faster than Solaris in that configuration. Nothing more."

                    But I doubt those benchmarks exists. You have confessed you FUD in one post, so this is just probably more FUD from you.

                    Comment


                    • #11
                      Originally posted by Lennie View Post
                      Totally agree about the large clusters. They pretty much all run Linux or are specialized in doing HPC:

                      http://www.top500.org/stats/list/36/osfam
                      What do you agree about large clusters? That they run a stripped down and tailor made Linux kernel, which is not a normal Linux anymore?

                      Comment


                      • #12
                        Does it all matter ?

                        I was just showing that btrfs isn't (yet?) faster in every environment, like the author of the article almost suggested.

                        I doubt I'll be using (Open)Solaris anytime soon, it's interresting but Oracle pretty much closed the door. I doubt I'll be buying from them either.

                        So I'm just waiting for btrfs and ceph (distributed filesystem) to improve enough so I can start to use them in a production environment.

                        Hopefully I can use FS-cache/cache-FS as well (second level cache for Linux filesystems).

                        Many companies are already involved with btrfs development and I think this will only increase.

                        If they improve enough, which their is atleast a lot of potential because the Linux-kernel community is so vast, I doubt their will be anything/much which is faster on the same hardware.

                        For example Google currently has their own (Google) 'filesystem', which just distributes and stores blocks, ceph already has an API for doing blocks. What if Google thought they possible want to use that on the long run and started testing it and adding patches.

                        Then speed (of development) could increase quiet a bit.

                        Maybe soon people will start deploying many-core lowpower ARM-based storage servers running Linux with btrfs and ceph. With large HDD's and fast SSD second level cache. Who knows.

                        Comment

                        Working...
                        X