Page 10 of 10 FirstFirst ... 8910
Results 91 to 97 of 97

Thread: Mac OS X 10.5 vs. Ubuntu 8.10 Benchmarks

  1. #91

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by deanjo View Post
    Heh, did you take a look at the date on that article? Ext3 is not known for it's speed nowdays. Ars technica did a good breakdown of the filesystems out there a while back.

    http://arstechnica.com/articles/paed...-systems.ars/1

    There is also a good debian paper.

    http://www.debian-administration.org/articles/388

    To quote the ars article:
    Yes, but maybe that's why those tricks aren't obsolete In some benchmarks EXT3 outperforms XFS. And in comparison to that what Leopard has as its file system EXT3 is superior.

    Here are some tests:
    http://marc.info/?t=104401945100002&r=1&w=2

    EDIT:

    Probably that is correct use of bonnie++ benchmark:

    http://home.comcast.net/~jpiszcz/benchmark/allfs.html
    Last edited by kraftman; 11-24-2008 at 12:32 PM.

  2. #92
    Join Date
    May 2007
    Location
    Third Rock from the Sun
    Posts
    6,587

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by kraftman View Post
    Yes, but maybe that's why those tricks aren't obsolete In some benchmarks EXT3 outperforms XFS. And in comparison to that what Leopard has as its file system EXT3 is superior.
    Yes, it all depends on alot of factors. A properly tuned XFS filesystem though a majority of the time outperform ext3 quite readily. A good guide to being tuning can be found here:

    http://everything2.com/index.pl?node_id=1479435

    You keep saying that ext3 is superior to HFS+ but you still have not said why. On what grounds are you basing this? Also without knowing the the environment and switches used for the bonnie++ benchmark, those results have to be taken with a grain of salt. We do not know for example on those results:

    Was the partitions on the same area of the area of the drive? Location of the partition can greatly vary results.
    What block sizes were used on the partition?
    If it was a raid, what type of raid? Chunk size? What stripe size was used? If raid 5 what parity algorithm was used?
    Is barriers being used?
    etc.
    All these items can cause a system's I/O results to vary greatly.
    Last edited by deanjo; 11-24-2008 at 07:45 PM.

  3. #93

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by deanjo View Post
    Yes, it all depends on alot of factors. A properly tuned XFS filesystem though a majority of the time outperform ext3 quite readily. A good guide to being tuning can be found here:

    http://everything2.com/index.pl?node_id=1479435
    Thanks, I have to try XFS.

    You keep saying that ext3 is superior to HFS+ but you still have not said why.
    Because EXT3 don't emulate POSIX like HFS+.

    EDIT:

    And HFS+ is case insensitive. I couldn't believe.

    Also without knowing the the environment and switches used for the bonnie++ benchmark, those results have to be taken with a grain of salt.
    What matters in link that I posted is only size of used file. You're completely right.
    Last edited by kraftman; 11-25-2008 at 12:59 PM.

  4. #94
    Join Date
    May 2007
    Location
    Third Rock from the Sun
    Posts
    6,587

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by kraftman View Post

    Because EXT3 don't emulate POSIX like HFS+.

    EDIT:

    And HFS+ is case insensitive. I couldn't believe.
    Because HFS+ supports POSIX and ACL's is a bad thing? You really might want to read http://developer.apple.com/technotes/tn/tn1150.html for detailed information on HFS+ You will see that HFS+ has evolved quite readily over the revisions.

    You have the option of using case sensitive if you want. Unfortunately POS companies like Adobe CS3 live in the stone ages and can't install and run on anything but a case insensitive drive.

  5. #95

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by deanjo View Post
    Because HFS+ supports POSIX and ACL's is a bad thing? You really might want to read http://developer.apple.com/technotes/tn/tn1150.html for detailed information on HFS+ You will see that HFS+ has evolved quite readily over the revisions.
    It's very good thing if it is native. I don't trust Apples talk, because they put marketing bullshit everywhere. They even delete post on their forum - funny Blue Screen of Death incident in Leopard .

    You have the option of using case sensitive if you want. Unfortunately POS companies like Adobe CS3 live in the stone ages and can't install and run on anything but a case insensitive drive.
    I heard about problems with CS3, but maybe just insensitive drives are from stone age?

  6. #96
    Join Date
    May 2007
    Location
    Third Rock from the Sun
    Posts
    6,587

    Default

    kraftman, those are developer papers, not marketing papers. If you don't trust those then you shouldn't read 99.9% of technical info out there as they all originate and derived from technical papers from the original documentation. If you would read the article you would see where your error is. OS X 10.5 is 100% SUSv3 and 1003.1 compliant.

    And again, HFS+ can do case sensitive, that's not a problem, the 3rd party developers on the other hand is where the issue is. Companies like Adobe are painfully slow to adopt.
    Last edited by deanjo; 11-25-2008 at 05:04 PM.

  7. #97

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by deanjo View Post
    kraftman, those are developer papers, not marketing papers. If you don't trust those then you shouldn't read 99.9% of technical info out there as they all originate and derived from technical papers from the original documentation. If you would read the article you would see where your error is. OS X 10.5 is 100% SUSv3 and 1003.1 compliant.

    And again, HFS+ can do case sensitive, that's not a problem, the 3rd party developers on the other hand is where the issue is. Companies like Adobe are painfully slow to adopt.
    Alright. Thanks for explanation

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •