Benchmarking ZFS On FreeBSD vs. EXT4 & Btrfs On Linux

[Markore]

Open/Solaris/ZFS and zfs-fuse

There should be also some distribution of Opensolaris/ZFS and Solaris/ZFS (and UFS) mesaurments for comparison (And why not, just for curiosity throw in Ubuntu with zfs-fuse test).

[jennyk]

Benchmarking ZFS On FreeBSD vs EXT4 Btrfs On Linux

Um, linux has more holes because it has branched out into many more areas while FreeBSD remains a server OS. More people working on more things, of course there will be more "holes". FreeBSD is still trailing behind Linux in terms of hardware support. It would be nice to be able to run my OS using current hardware, holes and all.

[energyman]

if you mean security holes - no.

FreeBSD has the policy that a local root exploit is nothing to worry about. Stuff like this is not fixed.

Linux distris on the other hand are quick to close such holes.

So from a strictly security point of view: FreeBSD is like a cheese.

[kebabbert]

Energyman,
"FreeBSD has the policy that a local root exploit is nothing to worry about. Stuff like this is not fixed."

That sounds remarkable. Do you have any links on this, or did you just made it up?

[renkin]

kraftman, where have you read the kernel scaling to 4096 CPU's on a single machine? I'm looking through the kernel menuconfig and it says the maximum number you can set CPU's to is 512

[curaga]

CONFIG_MAXSMP: Enable Maximum number of SMP Processors and NUMA Nodes

raises it from 512 to 4096.

[F.Ultra]

That sounds remarkable. Do you have any links on this, or did you just made it up?

Second that, I have a hard time believing that FreeBSD wouldn't patch for local exploits, and a quick Google brings up alot of such patches. So this sounds very strange.

[F.Ultra]

kraftman, where have you read the kernel scaling to 4096 CPU's on a single machine? I'm looking through the kernel menuconfig and it says the maximum number you can set CPU's to is 512

The first link that Google gave me: http://www.theinquirer.net/inquirer/...nces-linux-hpc. A quote from the link:

the same operating system that his firm is loading onto its 4,096 core, 16 terabyte beast.

[kraftman]

Second that, I have a hard time believing that FreeBSD wouldn't patch for local exploits, and a quick Google brings up alot of such patches. So this sounds very strange.

I heard about this long ago. However, I'm not sure if this is true or not. Strange, indeed.

************************************************** ************************************************** ***********************
@about holes

Cut the crap talk off. It's stupid comparing something such small like freebsd to some Linux distributions and saying freebsd has less bugs (compare it to Damn Small Linux or something). Btw. coverity discovered Linux code quality is better (bugs/LoC) then PC BSD (Freebsd has their own tracker from some, strange and unknown reason) and the time which takes to fix a bug matters the most.

[stoatwblr]

ZFS native

It'd be interesting to rerun this using the native ZFS linux implementation (it's much faster than fuse)

As others have said, ZFS is a server FS. There's little point running it on a single HDD and the best case scenario is 5 or more HDDs plus at least 1 SSD