Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

Benchmarking ZFS On FreeBSD vs. EXT4 & Btrfs On Linux

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

  • F.Ultra
    replied
    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.

    Leave a comment:


  • F.Ultra
    replied
    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.

    Leave a comment:


  • curaga
    replied
    CONFIG_MAXSMP: Enable Maximum number of SMP Processors and NUMA Nodes

    raises it from 512 to 4096.

    Leave a comment:


  • renkin
    replied
    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

    Leave a comment:


  • kebabbert
    replied
    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?

    Leave a comment:


  • energyman
    replied
    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.

    Leave a comment:


  • jennyk
    replied
    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.

    Leave a comment:


  • Markore
    replied
    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).

    Leave a comment:


  • jalyst
    replied
    http://arstechnica.com/open-source/n...ro-is-dead.ars

    Leave a comment:


  • smitty3268
    replied
    Originally posted by kebabbert View Post
    As we have seen, Oracle likes to get total control over the products they sell. Oracle is closing parts of Solaris 11, for instance. That is the reason I ask why Oracle does not exert more control over BTRFS?
    Because it's impossible. Sun doesn't own linux, doesn't control it, and would fail miserably if they ever tried. Which is exactly why they never have, they're smart enough to realize that themselves.

    Leave a comment:

Working...
X