Benchmarking ZFS On FreeBSD vs. EXT4 & Btrfs On Linux

[wake_up]

Yes, it's true! Linux is buggy, bloated and overall it sux!

Solaris is atm the greatest discovery in universe's history. Because The Great Solaris is simple and as balanced as a Cosmos. It's far far better than any previous human dicoveries like fire or wheel or even a condom!

I truly cannot understand this top500 statistics:
http://www.top500.org/stats/list/35/osfam
because Linux completely suck in Enterprise settings!

Looks like sysadmins who operate 455 Linux systems from that list are total i.d.i.o.t.s.!
Not to mention that mega-moron-admin(mma) that installed Linux on this beautiful Sun's Blade machine:
http://www.top500.org/system/10584 WTH?!

Hah... guess that they didn't heard the prophecy from the Holy Book:
"And there will come new Messiah, a new A.I., and He's name...
will be...
Solaris, The O.S.!"

[wake_up]

Yes, it's true! Linux is buggy, bloated and overall it sux!

Solaris is atm the greatest discovery in universe's history. Because The Great Solaris is simple and as balanced as a Cosmos. It's far far better than any previous human dicoveries like fire or wheel or even a c.o.n.d.om!

I truly cannot understand this top500 statistics:
http://www.top500.org/stats/list/35/osfam
because Linux completely sux in Enterprise settings!

Looks like sysadmins who operate 455 Linux systems from that list are total i.d.i.o.t.s.!
Not to mention that mega-m.o.r.o.n-admin(mma) that installed Linux on this beautiful Sun's Blade machine:
http://www.top500.org/system/10584 WTH?!

Hah... guess that they didn't heard the prophecy from the Holy Book:
"And there will come new Messiah, a new A.I., and He's name...
will be...
Solaris, The O.S.!"

[cjcox]

This is interesting. Could you tell me more on this? I want to hear more. If they use foul play, just like IBM, then I dont like that.

If you've ever attended any of the Usenix conferences, you'll see Sun (well... maybe not anymore) there doing presentations on the Solaris innards... of course, the talk evolves as Solaris moved from 8 to 9 to 10... So... I was at the LISA conference in Dallas in 2007 and the SAME players pretty much from Sun... the usual. But this time they were slamming Solaris 8 like crazy showing the massive memory leaks and bugs throughout. Now... mind you, they KNEW about these even back when they were touting Solaris 8 as the most stable and bug free OS known to mankind... I guess their presentation evolved to the point where truth could be presented??

I have more stories... but busy at the moment...

[drag]

Your all completely nuts.

A) Nobody gives a shit about Solaris now that OpenSolaris is effectively dead. The only way to properly use new versions of Solaris as they come out will be through a Oracle license. Plus the package management system in Solaris sucks. The hardware support in Solaris sucks. The usability of Solaris sucks. Application support for Solaris sucks.

So if your putting together some large database server then maybe you'll be interested in Solaris. But if your interested in using a cheap OS on fast commodity hardware then Solaris is just about the the last thing you'd want to use.


I repeat: If you care about ZFS you should use FreeBSD nowadays and NOT Solaris, unless your interested in purchasing Oracle hardware and paying Solaris licenses.

B) ZFS and Btrfs are roughly equivalent. Forget anything you may have read about the lack of scalable file systems for Linux because Btrfs solves those issues with a vengeance. It does it's checksumming, has raid-like features built in, volume management features built-in, etc.

It's still a year or two away from being very safe file system to use, but it's progressing.

C) In Oracle's mind there is no Linux vs Solaris. They could not give a shit less. Oracle knows that Sun's obsession about keeping it's hardware and OS special is one of the reasons it's a failed corporation.

Oracle only cares about "Java vertical application stack" vs ".NET vertical application stack". It's about fighting against Microsoft and Java is why they bought Sun. That is reason #1 by a long shot.

[L33F3R]

So, I just want to say this: "Muhahahaha" in your face. I TOLD you that ZFS is the best out there. ZFS does everything that other filesystems do, but better.

i think you are fucking crazy.


and i believe that the above statement is far more accurate then yours.

[energyman]

@drag as long as btrfs is not fully atomic I do not let it near my disks. This is a fat regression vs reiser4.

Reiser4 was blocked because of 'layer violations'. But with btrfs it is ok... yeah.

[kebabbert]

Ok, this is interesting. I agree I criticize Linux, that is true.


But you think that strong criticism is the same thing as FUD and Trolling? Every criticizer do FUD and Troll? It is not possible to criticize without being a FUDer? Is this your view point?


To me, FUD and Troll, is when you lie or make up negative things. If you lie, then you FUD and Troll. If you say true things, it is not FUD nor Troll, then it is only relevant criticism. You must be able to say true things that are even negative? Or do you just want to silence all criticizers? Just like Soviet did? Shoot all criticizers? It is forbidden to criticize?

Kraftman, can you answer my question?

Someone who critizice Linux, is automatically a FUDer? Is that your opinion? It is not possible to provide research papers, articles, white papers, benchmarks, interviews to Linux kernel developers, etc that show Linux' weak points - without being a FUDer?

What is FUD to you? Negative criticism? Lies? I agree I criticize Linux, but I dont make things up. But I do not lie. I can always link to white papers, benchmarks, interviews with Linux kernel devs, etc. I have provided lots of such links, just look at them.

So tell me Kraftman, when you say I FUD, what do you mean with that? I may agree, or I may not agree with you.

[kebabbert]

If you've ever attended any of the Usenix conferences, you'll see Sun (well... maybe not anymore) there doing presentations on the Solaris innards... of course, the talk evolves as Solaris moved from 8 to 9 to 10... So... I was at the LISA conference in Dallas in 2007 and the SAME players pretty much from Sun... the usual. But this time they were slamming Solaris 8 like crazy showing the massive memory leaks and bugs throughout. Now... mind you, they KNEW about these even back when they were touting Solaris 8 as the most stable and bug free OS known to mankind... I guess their presentation evolved to the point where truth could be presented??

I have more stories... but busy at the moment...

I dont see this as something strange of Sun. EVERYONE I know of, does that. Windows, Linux, AIX, etc. Everyone.

When there is a new release, they always point out the weak points of the earlier releases. Because there is ALWAYS weak points in earlier releases. You can always make a product better, there will always be bugs. If you can not make a product better, why do a new release? If there is a new release, it means the earlier release was bad.

Probably there are companies that keep silent about weak points in earlier releases. But is that preferable? It only makes you think their product is bug free, but I promise you - it is not bug free.

So, I dont agree with your post. Every company does that. I hope you dont think this is foul play from Sun, but you accept the same behavior from other companies? That would be biased, wouldnt it?

[kebabbert]

Yes, it's true! Linux is buggy, bloated and overall it sux!

Solaris is atm the greatest discovery in universe's history. Because The Great Solaris is simple and as balanced as a Cosmos. It's far far better than any previous human dicoveries like fire or wheel or even a condom!

I truly cannot understand this top500 statistics:
http://www.top500.org/stats/list/35/osfam
because Linux completely suck in Enterprise settings!

Looks like sysadmins who operate 455 Linux systems from that list are total i.d.i.o.t.s.!
Not to mention that mega-moron-admin(mma) that installed Linux on this beautiful Sun's Blade machine:
http://www.top500.org/system/10584 WTH?!

Hah... guess that they didn't heard the prophecy from the Holy Book:
"And there will come new Messiah, a new A.I., and He's name...
will be...
Solaris, The O.S.!"

HAHAHAHA!!! That was fun! Do you really think so of me?



Regarding this TOP500 list, I have talked about it earlier. But to recap: A super computer is very specialized to do one thing well. Linux kernel on super computers (which is basically a fast network with some PCs) is very stripped down to do only one thing.

A specialized kernel is easy to make. The naive Linux kernel is more modifiable than for instance, mature Solaris kernel which is very complex to modify. Hence, the choice is easy: Linux kernel. Linux kernel is easier to modify than Solaris.

For instance, Google uses not standard Linux. They have made their own. It is hardly Linux anymore.

http://www.computerworld.com/s/article/9003492/Google_testing_Sun_s_OpenSolaris_sources_say

To do a specialized version is easy. To do a general purpose machine is much more complicated and complex.


Also, Linux scales well horiontally. That is, just add another PC to the network. But to scale well on one single machine with lots of CPUs is very hard to do. Linux can not do that, yet. But Solaris can. (Of course). When the number of CPUs goes up, Linux bites the dust. Linux may be faster than Solaris on single cpu, I would not be surprised if it is true. But when we use many cpus and cores in Enterprise realm, then Linux bites the dust. We see that as few cores as 48, then Linux looses on SAP benchmarks to Solaris - even though Linux uses faster hardware. It turns out the CPU utilization of Linux is only 87% and Solaris has 99% - that is the reason Linux looses. It does not scale well on a big machine with lots of CPUs. But Linux scales well on a network, just add another PC.

As some Linux scaling experts say: the true strength in Linux is horizontal scaling. (That is, a network)

http://searchenterpriselinux.techtarget.com/news/929755/Experts-Forget-the-FUD-about-Linux-scalability

For instance, Google runs Linux on 10.000(?) cpus but there is no single server with that many CPUs. It is just a network, that google uses. And everyone knows that Linux scales well horizontally. It does. But sucks, vertically, which is evidenced by official SAP white papers. Which I have posted earlier here in Phoronix. But I can post again, if you want to see.

http://searchenterpriselinux.techtarget.com/news/929755/Experts-Forget-the-FUD-about-Linux-scalability

[kebabbert]

A) Nobody gives a shit about Solaris now that OpenSolaris is effectively dead. The only way to properly use new versions of Solaris as they come out will be through a Oracle license. Plus the package management system in Solaris sucks. The hardware support in Solaris sucks. The usability of Solaris sucks. Application support for Solaris sucks.

So if your putting together some large database server then maybe you'll be interested in Solaris. But if your interested in using a cheap OS on fast commodity hardware then Solaris is just about the the last thing you'd want to use.

Except for the part of "OpenSolaris is dead", I agree with you. Solaris is an Enterprise server OS for large machines, weighing 1000kg costing millions of USD and lots of CPUs and RAM and disc. Linux is far better for Desktop. Yes, This I agree with you.

I repeat: If you care about ZFS you should use FreeBSD nowadays and NOT Solaris, unless your interested in purchasing Oracle hardware and paying Solaris licenses.

If Oracle kills the OpenSolaris distro, I agree with you. If not, then I think it is better to use OpenSolaris.

B) ZFS and Btrfs are roughly equivalent. Forget anything you may have read about the lack of scalable file systems for Linux because Btrfs solves those issues with a vengeance. It does it's checksumming, has raid-like features built in, volume management features built-in, etc.

This I dont agree with you. I have shown several research papers, articles, etc that show how bad raid5, raid6, XFS, JFS, ReiserFS, etc are with respect to data integrity. I doubt BTRFS does that better. One of the researchers wrote something like "even though there are checksums in this product, we still detected data corruption".

Just read some of my links, and see how ALL products on the common market fail to give data integrity. You name it, and it can not give data protection. (Except ZFS of course, which does give data protection according to researchers. Why do you think CERN is migrating from Linux to ZFS?)

It's about fighting against Microsoft and Java is why they bought Sun. That is reason #1 by a long shot.

No, this is not true. Larry Ellison said officially he bought Sun for two key assets: Solaris and Java. Long before he bought Sun, Solaris was the reference platform to run Oracle database. This was official. OracleDB runs on Solaris more than any other OS. OracleDB is developed first on Solairs, and then ported to other OSes. Maybe because of DTrace?

So, no this is not true. Larry said officially that Solaris is for highend, and Linux for lowend. He said that Linux is behind Solaris.