Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

Running FreeBSD 12.0 With Intel Xeon Scalable Cascade Lake / Gigabyte S451-3R0 Server, Benchmarks Against Linux

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

  • #11
    Originally posted by k1e0x View Post

    It's not, you're thinking of ZFS-FUSE, an old (dead?) implementation.
    Yes, my bad.

    I've always found it funny that Linux subscribes to the fallacy that more people automatically produce better designs but in the real world you often see the opposite. An you are right BSD does not have a NIH complex.. (and if you want to get technical about who made things first.. Most OS's owe quite a lot to the BSD's)

    They simply just want to make the best system they can, they don't have fragile ego's about who's idea is was first.
    It seems it's exactly opposite. FreeBSD took ZFS from Solaris and Linux had only some slow, user space implementation. However, even if ZFS in FreeBSD was the first class citizen it was outperformed by ZoL. Now, FreeBSD takes code from ZoL, so it proves development around Linux is far more superior. It's not about not having a NIH complex. It's about resources FreeBSD lacks. There are so many unfixed bugs in FreeBSD, because of lack of developers. Another thing are graphic drivers. FreeBSD copies from Linux in this part as well. Most OS's don't care about BSD's at all. Maybe twenty, thirty years ago I would rethink what I'm saying here, but it seems you can't accept the truth. FreeBSD has only one good file system (ZFS) which they took from Solaris and they're not even able to keep it up to date. This tells a lot about its development. Another thing is networking. Years ago it could catch up to Linux, but now it's left far behind. The lack of drivers, scalability and performance. You can't fix it without developers.
    Last edited by Wojcian; 04-14-2019, 05:05 AM.

    Comment


    • #12
      Originally posted by Wojcian View Post

      Yes, my bad.



      It seems it's exactly opposite. FreeBSD took ZFS from Solaris and Linux had only some slow, user space implementation. However, even if ZFS in FreeBSD was the first class citizen it was outperformed by ZoL. Now, FreeBSD takes code from ZoL, so it proves development around Linux is far more superior. It's not about not having a NIH complex. It's about resources FreeBSD lacks. There are so many unfixed bugs in FreeBSD, because of lack of developers. Another thing are graphic drivers. FreeBSD copies from Linux in this part as well. Most OS's don't care about BSD's at all. Maybe twenty, thirty years ago I would rethink what I'm saying here, but it seems you can't accept the truth. FreeBSD has only one good file system (ZFS) which they took from Solaris and they're not even able to keep it up to date. This tells a lot about its development. Another thing is networking. Years ago it could catch up to Linux, but now it's left far behind. The lack of drivers, scalability and performance. You can't fix it without developers.
      You have no idea what your talking about. When was the last time you actually used FreeBSD? I don't think you would think it out of date or slow next to CentOS.

      Comment


      • #13
        Originally posted by k1e0x View Post

        You have no idea what your talking about. When was the last time you actually used FreeBSD? I don't think you would think it out of date or slow next to CentOS.
        You didn't explain why they can't keep up to date the file system they have in a kernel tree. While ZFS isn't even mainlined in Linux, its support is in better shape from some reason. You should also take a look at networking performance:

        https://medium.com/@matteocroce/linu...g-cbadcdb15ddd

        Comment


        • #14
          ZoL has a proper ZFS TRIM and Nfsv4 acl? Linux and FreeBSD were implementing and contributing different features to OpenZFS upstream. FreeBSD had no such need for encryption because it could be done as easily through GELI facility in FreeBSD. It was still equally up to date. Yeah, now, with rebase, it's more unified, with both usung ZoL. 2 ways to encrypt ZFS and have to wait for TRIM/NFSv4 acls.. yay.

          Trim support is at least not far off. No clue about ACL's.

          Btw 12-STABLE recent versions can also now use ZoL's recent code.

          Originally posted by Wojcian View Post

          You didn't explain why they can't keep up to date the file system they have in a kernel tree. While ZFS isn't even mainlined in Linux, its support is in better shape from some reason. You should also take a look at networking performance:

          https://medium.com/@matteocroce/linu...g-cbadcdb15ddd
          • That guy is Red Hat employee, I'd take everything from him towards BSD with a grain of salt.
          • Version used is old by now, 12 received significant NUMA updates and should perform much better than older 11.x branch
          • Did not notice bare metal tests. Just virtual machine guests. Though I lost interest fairly quickly tbh.
          Last edited by aht0; 04-16-2019, 12:23 PM.

          Comment

          Working...
          X