HAMMER vs. HAMMER2 Benchmarks On DragonFlyBSD 5.6

[skeevy420]

Maybe it'll suffer from the same (licensing) problems that prevent ZFS from trully being avaliable in Linux?...
Anyway, fortunately we seem to have good candidates in line, like bcachefs and Tux3

It's under the BSD license and there's already BSD licensed code in the Linux kernel so that won't be, or shouldn't be, an issue. Like aht0 said, it'll be more about the internal differences of the two OS's kernels and, this is me here, probably need something like ZFS's SPL to translate between the FS and kernel so Linux HAMMER2 doesn't have to be changed that much from DragonflyBSD HAMMER2.

As a ZoL user, I'd like HAMMER2 to come to Linux.

1) Choice and options are always good. That's why I stayed being a Linux user all these years. Having two reliable advanced file systems we can trust would be awesome.

2) We need something like ZFS that upstream Linux kernel devs will allow into the kernel. Having one reliable advanced file system supported in the kernel that we can trust would be even more awesomer.

3) Having multiple advanced file systems available, especially a natively supported one, will give a lot more incentive for people who know what they're doing to update or make new Linux boot loaders with support for advanced file system features. It simply isn't fun working around GRUB with ZFS or BTRFS.

[aht0]

The colors are too close to each other. Dark purple and slightly darker purple.

Names might be similar, content is dissimilar. UFS2 in FreeBSD: Bigger (64bit vs 32bit) block pointers, variable-sized blocks, different inode birth times, extended attributes, journaling..

[skeevy420]

Names might be similar, content is dissimilar. UFS2 in FreeBSD: Bigger (64bit vs 32bit) block pointers, variable-sized blocks, different inode birth times, extended attributes, journaling..

In all fairness, it isn't that different than doing benchmarks of all the Linux file systems or some of the other odd combinations like the one back in January with benchmarks of Ubuntu with EXT4, F2FS, & ZFS (ZoL), Clear with EXT4, TrueOS with ZFS (ZoF), FreeBSD with ZFS (BSD), and DragonflyBSD with HAMMER2.

[aht0]

In all fairness, it isn't that different than doing benchmarks of all the Linux file systems or some of the other odd combinations like the one back in January with benchmarks of Ubuntu with EXT4, F2FS, & ZFS (ZoL), Clear with EXT4, TrueOS with ZFS (ZoF), FreeBSD with ZFS (BSD), and DragonflyBSD with HAMMER2.

Yeah, results for one would "taint" the other undeservingly, be the results good or bad. With sufficiently different names, no such issues but most folks throw all UFS iterations mentally into "same kettle".

[smitty3268]

It's amazing DragonflyBSD developers were able to write their own file system while bigger teams like FreeBSD and even Linux seem to have problems with such goals.

Uhh, linux has lots of file systems.

[aht0]

Uhh, linux has lots of file systems.

Which was the last one created for Linux, is main-lined, has been stable for years and is 'feature complete'? To the degree that folks using it are not specially afraid of it eating their data by some bug at random?

Ext4? - Created bit less than 2 decades a go.
Ext3 - even older.
XFS - originates from IRIX
JFS - originates from AIX
ReiserFS - appeared back in 2001 (Reiser4 is not main-lined). Many distros are not offering it in their installers.
F2FS - problematic as recently as last Autumn (periodic process freezing), use limited to solid state media.
BtrfFS - still unfinished, all features not ready/safe.
BcacheFs - unfinished, not main-lined.

So, what does user wanting solid system install have to choose from? Ext4 and XFS in general. RHEL has apparently given up on idea of BtrFS and is putting it's faith on XFS.

Don't you think, if people had actual FAITH in file system (that are also more complicated than average) development in Linux sphere, they'd fuck around trying to develop ZoL - WHILE knowing that it won't be main-lined - or talk about porting Hammer or whatever?

[smitty3268]

Don't you think, if people had actual FAITH in file system (that are also more complicated than average) development in Linux sphere, they'd fuck around trying to develop ZoL - WHILE knowing that it won't be main-lined - or talk about porting Hammer or whatever?

Can you point out where people have talked about porting Hammer to linux?

[aht0]

Can you point out where people have talked about porting Hammer to linux?

Same page, read #1 comment. Do Phoronix search? Anything else to nitpick at?

[smitty3268]

Same page, read #1 comment. Do Phoronix search? Anything else to nitpick at?

Oh, I thought you meant for real by actual devs, not just some random idiot on a phoronix message board.

I can ask "Is anyone going to port BTRFS to BSD?" here, and then equally validly say that people are talking about doing that, but that's obvious nonsense.

Anyway, the rest of your message I wasn't really interested in going into further. Half of it is facts I agree with. The other half was opinion, which I don't necessary fully agree with, but I think generally valid opinions a reasonable person could have, so I'm not really interested in going into it.

In short, I think it'd be more interesting discussing what features you think linux FS's are missing rather than just complaining there aren't any new ones.

[babali]

Which was the last one created for Linux, is main-lined, has been stable for years and is 'feature complete'? To the degree that folks using it are not specially afraid of it eating their data by some bug at random?

Ext4? - Created bit less than 2 decades a go.
Ext3 - even older.
XFS - originates from IRIX
JFS - originates from AIX
ReiserFS - appeared back in 2001 (Reiser4 is not main-lined). Many distros are not offering it in their installers.
F2FS - problematic as recently as last Autumn (periodic process freezing), use limited to solid state media.
BtrfFS - still unfinished, all features not ready/safe.
BcacheFs - unfinished, not main-lined.

So, what does user wanting solid system install have to choose from? Ext4 and XFS in general. RHEL has apparently given up on idea of BtrFS and is putting it's faith on XFS.

Don't you think, if people had actual FAITH in file system (that are also more complicated than average) development in Linux sphere, they'd fuck around trying to develop ZoL - WHILE knowing that it won't be main-lined - or talk about porting Hammer or whatever?

It is true that Linux does not have a filesystem which "whaooo" the masses. Yet I think ext4 is very stable and fast. I do not complain or had any issues with it. I've been using btrfs also and I did not have any issues with it.