Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

Benchmarking ZFS On FreeBSD vs. EXT4 & Btrfs On Linux

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

  • kraftman
    replied
    Originally posted by kebabbert View Post
    Well, benchmarks shows that Solaris scores higher than Linux, so yes, I do believe that Solaris is faster.

    You have many times said that Solaris is bloated and 30% slower. Can you show links that support this claim of yours? Normally, you never show links that support your strange claims, even though I ask. How can Solaris be faster on benchmarks, when the binaries are slower?
    Which benchmarks? SAP benchmarks doesn't show slowlaris is faster. When comes to Bonwick then yes, he was FUDing and everyone knows this. The answer to your question is simple - but now it's you who has to answer.

    http://download.sap.com/download.epd...AD2160BC51132A

    http://download.sap.com/download.epd...11DE75E0922A14

    We have 40cores 2,4Ghz each running SuSe Linuxe Enterprise Server and 48cores 2.6Ghz each running slowlaris. Linux which runs on much slower machine kicks slowlaris ass, why it's that Kebbabert? Have a nice day. I figured out some interesting things about you btw. Your a known person and one of the biggest trolls ever.

    Also, it is strange that FreeBSD runs Linux software faster than Linux itself, dont you think? It shows FreeBSD has better design and less bloated than Linux, dont you think? Even Linus T says that Linux is bloated.
    In which Kebbabert's dream? It just shows you''re just a troll. Freebsd is far more bloated than Linux. Unmodified Linux can run even on mobile devices while bsd can't. Linux's success in nearly every area proofs it's much better designed than slowlaris or bsd.

    Edit:

    I would forget:

    http://scalability.org/?p=388

    There are many more things that can be said about slowlaris. You can't even imagine.However, it's sad you trash the forum and I have to keep replying to troll like you. Keep in mind it doesn't give me any satisfaction.
    Last edited by kraftman; 13 November 2011, 01:07 PM.

    Leave a comment:


  • kebabbert
    replied
    Originally posted by kraftman View Post
    I once said you're making just fool of yourself. You were giving me sap benchmark as a proof slowlaris scales better than Linux, but when I said you're a troll and idiot you didn't want to believe.
    You have many times said I am a Troll and Idiot, yes. Should I believe you on this? Why should I believe you on this? You confessed earlier that you have FUD. Whenever I write something, I speak true. I do not make things up nor lie nor FUD. I can always back up my links. You on the other hand, have several times written things that are not true, for instance when you called me ugly names for not believing you when you said Solaris only scales to 64 cpus, and I showed you links with 106 cpu Solarsi servers and you refused and denied that link. Who is trolling and FUDing?

    You also called Bonwick for FUDer when he said that Linux does not scale well. And Linux does not scale well on SMP servers. Everybody knows this. Bonwick spoke true. Show me a big SMP Linux server, go ahead. There are none on the market! Linux does not scale well on SMP servers. But on clusters, Linux scales very well, everybody knows this (including Bonwick).



    I tried to explain sap benchmarks are irrelevant, but you didn't believe.
    Yes, you explained a lot of things to me. You said things as SAP has a cooperation with Sun, and that is the reason that SAP benchmarks is faster for Solaris, punishing Linux. I posted a link and proved that SAP has cooperation with several Linux companies as well. Why does not SAP punish Solaris? So I dont agree with your explanations.



    I said I've have quite a lot of fun of your stupid argumentation
    I dont think my argumentation is stupid. I ask relevant questions "why should SAP punish Solaris when SAP also has cooperation with Linux companies?" - and to my questions you dont have any good answer. Only more strange explanations.



    and I've got something funny for you:
    http://centiq.co.uk/the-saps-benchmark.html
    Tell me now how it is to look like an idiot? The reason I say this is "official SAP benchmarks doesn't show that Solaris is faster than Linux".
    I have read this entire link you posted. Could you cite the text that is relevant to this discussion? I dont understand your point, can you explain your point?



    Btw. you don't believe slowlaris which is bloated by design and which has 30% slower binaries could be faster, do you?
    Well, benchmarks shows that Solaris scores higher than Linux, so yes, I do believe that Solaris is faster.

    You have many times said that Solaris is bloated and 30% slower. Can you show links that support this claim of yours? Normally, you never show links that support your strange claims, even though I ask. How can Solaris be faster on benchmarks, when the binaries are slower?

    Also, it is strange that FreeBSD runs Linux software faster than Linux itself, dont you think? It shows FreeBSD has better design and less bloated than Linux, dont you think? Even Linus T says that Linux is bloated.

    Leave a comment:


  • kraftman
    replied
    I once said you're making just fool of yourself. You were giving me sap benchmark as a proof slowlaris scales better than Linux, but when I said you're a troll and idiot you didn't want to believe. I tried to explain sap benchmarks are irrelevant, but you didn't believe. I said I've have quite a lot of fun of your stupid argumentation and I've got something funny for you:

    http://centiq.co.uk/the-saps-benchmark.html

    Tell me now how it is to look like an idiot? The reason I say this is "official SAP benchmarks doesn't show that Solaris is faster than Linux". Btw. you don't believe slowlaris which is bloated by design and which has 30% slower binaries could be faster, do you?

    Leave a comment:


  • kebabbert
    replied
    Originally posted by kraftman View Post
    It's amazing how someone can post such crap. By saying Linux scales well up to 8 cores you're an idiot. You saw it scales great up to 64 physical CPUs, but you're a lier. Btw. why slowlaris's dead in HPC? About your FUD regarding btrfs - non stable version of btrfs was uses which is obvious.
    I am not saying that Linux scales well up to 8 cores, read my post again. I am saying that Linux maybe scales well up to 8 CPUS - with 8 cores each, gives 64 cores.

    The reason I say this, is because official SAP benchmarks shows that Solaris is faster than Linux on server with 48 cores. The Linux server used higher clocked CPUs, and used faster DRAM chips - but still the slower Solaris server scored higher. Also, the official benchmarks showed that Linux 48 core SMP server, had a cpu utilization of 87% which is low. Solaris SMP server had 99%. That is the reason that Solaris scored higher - it scaled better. Clearly, Linux had problems scaling on 48 cores, only 87% cpu utilization which is bad. That is the reason that 64 cores may be an upper limit for Linux, hence 8 cpus.



    So, all of this slowlaris machines with 100+ CPUs aren't real SMP servers? Then what this talk is about, your idiocy or something?
    What? How can you say that Solaris scales to 100+ cpus on SMP servers? You denied that fiercely. I explained that Solaris scales beyond 64 cpus, but you denied it:
    http://phoronix.com/forums/showthrea...198#post143198
    "Oh, dumb. You FUD and many people FUD. FUD happens. Idiot, the fact is slowlaris scales only up to 64CPUs and Linux scales up to 4096CPUs. Dot. I don't care if you believe or not. You're an idiot, so you're free to not believe in facts."

    So, are you now agreeing that Solaris scales beyond 64 cpus in SMP servers?



    It's very hard to imagine slowlaris scaling well while it died in HPC, it's being marginalized in Enterprise, because it's legacy system with binaries slower at least 30% than Linux' ones. Oracle plans to use btrfs as a default file system in their distribution and this means they want to kill slowlaris completely (sooner as one would expect).
    I have showed you links where Larry praises Solaris as being the best OS, and where he says that Linux is for lowend and Solaris for highend. And Oracle is increasing development and have more Solaris developers than Sun ever had, I have shown these links too. I find it hard to believe that Oracle is going to kill Solaris? Do you have links or any support? Or is this just wishful thinking from you?

    Regarding HPC work loads, it is easy to do. But you need to heavily modify the kernel, strip out everything. Just a highly specialized kernel, doing only one thing: number crunching. To strip Linux is easy, as it is a naive and structurally simple kernel. On the other hand, Solaris is a mature, highly complex kernel, using lot of macros to generate code and lot of weird stuff. It would be difficult to understand Solaris kernel to modify it. And, Solaris was proprietary, so no one wanted to pay lot of money for Solaris licenses. Also, Oracle is not interested in the HPC market, as Oracle have said it is not profitable. It is too specialized and few customers.

    On the other hand, IBM thinks HPC world records gives good PR, so IBM is willing to bet on HPC. Oracle mostly cares about profit, and walks away from low margin business. I have no doubt that if Solaris ever becomes low margin business, then Oracle will abandon Solaris and open source it and leave it be. Just as Oracle have done recently with OpenOffice which is not profitable, Oracle open sourced it and let OpenOffice go. If Oracle does not earn money, Oracle will just leave the product and try other products.

    Leave a comment:


  • kraftman
    replied
    It's very hard to imagine slowlaris scaling well while it died in HPC, it's being marginalized in Enterprise, because it's legacy system with binaries slower at least 30% than Linux' ones. Oracle plans to use btrfs as a default file system in their distribution and this means they want to kill slowlaris completely (sooner as one would expect).

    Leave a comment:


  • kraftman
    replied
    Originally posted by kebabbert View Post
    This Linux SGI server with 4096 cores, is not a true SMP server. The biggest SMP servers today have ~64 cpus. Everything bigger than 64 cpus, are basically a cluster with horrible latency, making them unusable for SMP workloads.
    So, all of this slowlaris machines with 100+ CPUs aren't real SMP servers? Then what this talk is about, your idiocy or something?

    Leave a comment:


  • kraftman
    replied
    Originally posted by kebabbert View Post
    This Linux SGI server with 4096 cores, is not a true SMP server. The biggest SMP servers today have ~64 cpus. Everything bigger than 64 cpus, are basically a cluster with horrible latency, making them unusable for SMP workloads.

    IBM and Oracle and HP are fighting fiercely trying to get the best world record benchmark, for instance in TPC-C. The biggest mature Unix Enterprise servers these guys have, are something like 32-64 cpus. The biggest z10 IBM mainframe have 64 cpus. The biggest z196 IBM Mainframe have 24 cpus.

    Why dont they just insert 128cpus? Or even 256cpus? Or even 16.384 cpus? Answer: no, these Mainframe/Unix servers are SMP servers. The biggest SMP servers have ~64 cpus today. An SMP server, is basically a single fat huge server weighing tons and costing many millions of USD. We talk about scaling vertically, "scale up".

    If we talk about HPC servers, horizontal scaling, "scale out", then we talk about clusters. Anything bigger than 64 cpus, are basically a cluster. A bunch of PCs sitting on a fast switch. Look at the benchmarks for the SGI Altix server; very impressive results indeed. But, all these workloads are cluster benchmarks. Not SMP benchmarks. If you build a cluster, why stop at 4096 cores? You can just change the number "4096" to "16.384" and recompile, and then you can brag about "Linux scales to 16.384 cores, which is far more than the biggest IBM servers with 64 cpus".

    Linux does very well in HPC servers, and scales to many many thousands of cpus. But on SMP servers, Linux scales very bad, maybe ~8 cpus.

    The biggest Linux SMP server, should be an normal 8-socket x86 server. I dont know of any 16-socket x86 server. You can populate that with 8 core Nehalem cpus, getting 64 cores. Thus, the biggest Linux SMP server should be the normal 8 cpu x86 servers that you can purchase today. For instance Oracle X4800 8-socket server, which supports 64 cores, and 1TB RAM. If you want a 16-socket x86 server, then you need special made chip sets, etc. It will be very expensive. And if you want 64 socket cpus, then it will be VERY expensive, costing tens of millions of USD. To scale well on SMP servers, is very difficult to do well. Very difficult. For instance, IBM has tried to do this for many decades, and now scales to 64 cpus.



    Here is a new big Linux server, it scales to up to 8.192 cores, using a single Linux image. The solution is called vSMP.
    http://www.theregister.co.uk/2011/09..._amd_opterons/

    Thus it is a cluster. As someone explained:

    "I tried running a nicely parallel shared memory workload (75% efficiency on 24 cores in a 4 socket opteron box) on a 64 core ScaleMP box with 8 2-socket boards linked by infiniband. Result: horrible. It might look like a shared memory, but access to off-board bits has huge latency."





    Regarding ZFS, it is built for server usage. With many disks. And built to scale well up to many disks. BTRFS lags behind when you start to use many disks, it does not scale as well as ZFS. Benchmarks proves this.
    It's amazing how someone can post such crap. By saying Linux scales well up to 8 cores you're an idiot. You saw it scales great up to 64 physical CPUs, but you're a lier. Btw. why slowlaris's dead in HPC? About your FUD regarding btrfs - non stable version of btrfs was uses which is obvious.

    Leave a comment:


  • kebabbert
    replied
    This Linux SGI server with 4096 cores, is not a true SMP server. The biggest SMP servers today have ~64 cpus. Everything bigger than 64 cpus, are basically a cluster with horrible latency, making them unusable for SMP workloads.

    IBM and Oracle and HP are fighting fiercely trying to get the best world record benchmark, for instance in TPC-C. The biggest mature Unix Enterprise servers these guys have, are something like 32-64 cpus. The biggest z10 IBM mainframe have 64 cpus. The biggest z196 IBM Mainframe have 24 cpus.

    Why dont they just insert 128cpus? Or even 256cpus? Or even 16.384 cpus? Answer: no, these Mainframe/Unix servers are SMP servers. The biggest SMP servers have ~64 cpus today. An SMP server, is basically a single fat huge server weighing tons and costing many millions of USD. We talk about scaling vertically, "scale up".

    If we talk about HPC servers, horizontal scaling, "scale out", then we talk about clusters. Anything bigger than 64 cpus, are basically a cluster. A bunch of PCs sitting on a fast switch. Look at the benchmarks for the SGI Altix server; very impressive results indeed. But, all these workloads are cluster benchmarks. Not SMP benchmarks. If you build a cluster, why stop at 4096 cores? You can just change the number "4096" to "16.384" and recompile, and then you can brag about "Linux scales to 16.384 cores, which is far more than the biggest IBM servers with 64 cpus".

    Linux does very well in HPC servers, and scales to many many thousands of cpus. But on SMP servers, Linux scales very bad, maybe ~8 cpus.

    The biggest Linux SMP server, should be an normal 8-socket x86 server. I dont know of any 16-socket x86 server. You can populate that with 8 core Nehalem cpus, getting 64 cores. Thus, the biggest Linux SMP server should be the normal 8 cpu x86 servers that you can purchase today. For instance Oracle X4800 8-socket server, which supports 64 cores, and 1TB RAM. If you want a 16-socket x86 server, then you need special made chip sets, etc. It will be very expensive. And if you want 64 socket cpus, then it will be VERY expensive, costing tens of millions of USD. To scale well on SMP servers, is very difficult to do well. Very difficult. For instance, IBM has tried to do this for many decades, and now scales to 64 cpus.



    Here is a new big Linux server, it scales to up to 8.192 cores, using a single Linux image. The solution is called vSMP.
    http://www.theregister.co.uk/2011/09..._amd_opterons/
    Depending on the cores per chip and the generation you use, you can have from 2,048 to 8,192 cores in a single image.
    ...
    The vSMP hypervisor that glues systems together is not for every workload, but on workloads where there is a lot of message passing between server nodes – financial modeling, supercomputing, data analytics, and similar parallel workloads. Shai Fultheim, the company's founder and chief executive officer, says ScaleMP has over 300 customers now. "We focused on HPC as the low-hanging fruit," Fultheim tells El Reg,
    ...
    vSMP Foundation for Cluster is used to take multiple server images and plunk them on a single server image running one copy of a Linux operating system; you use vSMP and that operating system instead of a cluster manager to run workloads.
    Thus it is a cluster. As someone explained:

    "I tried running a nicely parallel shared memory workload (75% efficiency on 24 cores in a 4 socket opteron box) on a 64 core ScaleMP box with 8 2-socket boards linked by infiniband. Result: horrible. It might look like a shared memory, but access to off-board bits has huge latency."





    Regarding ZFS, it is built for server usage. With many disks. And built to scale well up to many disks. BTRFS lags behind when you start to use many disks, it does not scale as well as ZFS. Benchmarks proves this.
    Last edited by kebabbert; 08 November 2011, 05:20 AM.

    Leave a comment:


  • stoatwblr
    replied
    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

    Leave a comment:


  • kraftman
    replied
    Originally posted by F.Ultra View Post
    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.

    Leave a comment:

Working...
X