Benchmarking ZFS On FreeBSD vs. EXT4 & Btrfs On Linux

[kebabbert]

i think you are fucking crazy.

So prove me wrong. Go ahead.

Speed: Show me a BTRFS machine that beats the ZFS machine I linked to.

Data integrity: Show me that BTRFS does offer data protection (I have showed research papers where they tried ZFS and the researchers said ZFS detected every injected error, and would have corrected every error if they used raid. In the study, they only used single disc).

Functionality: BTRFS lags behind here too. BTRFS is still in development phase. For instance, ZFS has dedup. BTRFS has not.

So, ZFS gives more performance, provenly data protection and more functionality - am I wrong when I claim ZFS to be better? And best of all, you can download ZFS today and use it. It is free. BTRFS, it is not ready yet.

When a filesystem is released, it takes at least 5 years before it is let into Server halls. There are too many bugs. If you crash a kernel, you loose a days work. If you crash a filesystem, you can loose several years of data. Filesystems are far more important to get bug free than a kernel. No Enterprise server hall will allow BTRFS in 5 years after releease of v1.0.

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

I agree with lots of things he wrote, yes. But I have posted many more accurate things than he did. For instance, Linux people thinks it is as simple as adding some checksums into BTRFS, then data will be safe. I showed lots of research papers where data always was corrupt. No product TODAY on the common market offers data protection, except ZFS. Even after many years of devleopment, we still dont have data protection. Just read the research papers. SAS server discs, also has lots of errors - though they are enterprise. SAS discs are not safe. You want to see some links on this?

[kraftman]

Kraftman, can you answer my question?

I don't have to cause you didn't show papers thus you're a troll and a FUDer.

[kraftman]

Kraftman, can you answer my question?

I don't have to cause you didn't show papers thus you're a troll and a FUDer. I was couscious of these quite a long ago and that's why I was saying you're making me fun. You have lost your game, because of the simple mistake - those aren't papers you gave, but usually PR bull and so on. There's some draft sponsored by sun probably, which exists since years and which was updated from time to time, but it was NEVER released. I bet poor sun maggots feared the Linux people can proove them wrong then. Now, I can take what you were writing seriously and I can do what I want whith it. I can write a wiki entry (using your invalid interpretation of "valid criticizm" term) about Orvar Korvar being a known troll and a FUDer (trolls at phoronix, osnews, some other sites) and if you will have objections about this entry then it will mean all of these what you were doing you were doing intentionaly and being causcious your definition was invalid, so this will mean you're even a bigger troll, FUDer and lier. Otherwise, if you won't have objections such entry can simply exists, right? Now, show me the papers.

[kebabbert]

"Kraftman, can you answer my question?"

I don't have to cause you didn't show papers thus you're a troll and a FUDer.

But this is an answer!

It is like I ask a question and you say "no comments" - but that is a comment!

Or, if a girl says "you and I have nothing in common!" - but then we share one trait: that we have nothing in common! Thus, it can never happen, you always have something in common. If you dont have something in common, then you one thing in common: you have nothing in common. It is always false to say "we have nothing in common" because you can not say so and mean it. It will always be a false statement. But untrained people dont realise this. This is pure logic. And I have studied mathematical logic. I see similar flaws in posts. But people dont realise it, when I say their posts are weird, people say to me that I have flawed logic, I dont know math, I have low IQ, etc. That is hilarious. It is them who dont understand.

I don't have to cause you didn't show papers thus you're a troll and a FUDer. I was couscious of these quite a long ago and that's why I was saying you're making me fun. You have lost your game, because of the simple mistake - those aren't papers you gave, but usually PR bull and so on. There's some draft sponsored by sun probably, which exists since years and which was updated from time to time, but it was NEVER released. I bet poor sun maggots feared the Linux people can proove them wrong then. Now, I can take what you were writing seriously and I can do what I want whith it. I can write a wiki entry (using your invalid interpretation of "valid criticizm" term) about Orvar Korvar being a known troll and a FUDer (trolls at phoronix, osnews, some other sites) and if you will have objections about this entry then it will mean all of these what you were doing you were doing intentionaly and being causcious your definition was invalid, so this will mean you're even a bigger troll, FUDer and lier. Otherwise, if you won't have objections such entry can simply exists, right? Now, show me the papers.

I have showed you lots of research papers, white papers, benchmarks, interviews to Linux kernel developers, etc. So cut the crap talk.

What is FUD to you? Who is a FUDer? I am strongly criticizing Linux, that is true. Am I a FUDer then? I dont agree with your view point. You seem to think that everyone that criticize Linux is a FUDer, do I understand you correctly? If so, then you are wrong.

Look, you can say "I am Linux basher", or so - that is true. But you can not call me Liar, nor FUDer - because that is not true. If you call me that, then it is you that lie. About me.

And you can not call me "Linux hater" either, because I dont hate Linux. I like it, I use Ubuntu at home in VirtualBox on top OpenSolaris. I have installed Ubuntu to my computer noob friend. I suggested to wipe Windows and install Ubuntu on his other computer too. And he likes Ubuntu. I tell him how safe Linux is, how good it is, etc. I did not install OpenSolaris, because Linux is better than OpenSolaris on the Desktop. My computer friend trusts me, and wanted OpenSolaris too, just like me. But I adviced against OpenSolaris. Ubuntu is better as desktop. I wanted to install Ubuntu on my girl friend's computer too, but she prefers Windows.

Linux is a good OS. It is far better than Windows ever will be. But when we talk about large Enterprise settings, machine weighing 1000 kg, costs million of USD, lots of CPUs and RAM, lots of discs, etc - then you need a Server Enterprise OS. Not a desktop OS. If it sounds I hate Linux, it is not true. Linux scales way better than Windows, much more stable, much faster, etc. In every aspect Linux is better. But we must differentiate between large Enterprise servers and desktop/small servers. Linux and Solaris has different uses. That is all I am saying. I try to convince my friends to switch to Ubuntu - because I like it.

So, dont say I FUD or Troll, I dont do that. Say I am a Linux basher instead. That is true.

[kebabbert]

Oh! I just got an email saying that "Kraftman just FUD" and "should be banned from the forum". You see, Kraftman, there are lots of people thinking things about you. You should stop post FUD. I am not the only one saying so. There are several people against you here. You better calm down and use better language.

[L33F3R]

So prove me wrong. Go ahead.

Prove what wrong. I called you crazy. Your going on about what people think and whats common in a relationship? Crazy you are.

Lets get inside the head of oracle for a second. They now control ZFS and BTRFS. Why in the hell would they spend a bucketload of money developing BTRFS to be worse then ZFS? They wouldnt. Would you start saving your money to buy an old pentium 2 desktop as a replacement to your current setup? this is unlikely. The thought that oracle wants to waste money in this way is inconceivable.

I dont care what papers you provide, or what links you throw at me because you are really not worth my time. I have found that dispite being only 1 man who needs to eat and sleep, Michael does a damn good job benchmarking. From what i see in the charts, BTRFS kicks ZFS ass in a fucking development stage. If you would like to argue that ZFS keeps your data safer, go ahead, but your competing with a filesystem still in development. If you for one second belive that a development FS is going to be a safer bet than a competed one then you have problems beyond repair. But as i said, it is unlikely oracle is making a 2nd rate FS, especially when they have all the ZFS licencing cards.

kraftman is right, fucking troll.

[LightningCrash]

So, where was OpenSolaris in all this? Seeing as it's the native environment to run ZFS in?

That's a good question. The whole comparison seems a bit off.

As far as I can tell, the ZFS pool in PC-BSD 8.1 is version 13. ZFS Pool Version 13 was also included in OpenSolaris 2008.11.
So we're comparing a very stable, mature solution (FreeBSD 8.1) to a an unstable developer's snapshot of Ubuntu 10.10 running an unstable version of BTRFS.

Comparisons like that aren't really definitive IMO.

[wake_up]

@kebabbert:
I just don't like holy wars. And i don't like off-topics and spam.

All that you said on this forum was pure off-topic and spam. Article says that this tests are focused on DESKTOP using, so all that you said about enterprise is OFF-TOPIC! And as you repeated your off-topic posts many many times - you are doing nothing more than spaming.

Look, i really don't care about enterprise. I don't care is btrfs a killer of ZFS. I don't care is ZFS always a winner. I don't have matrix of 100 discs to test it.

Brtfs own ZFS's ass on phoronix DESKTOP tests, so what? It really means nothing to normal desktop user because normal user won't switch to another OS only because of it's filesystem! Isn't that logical and clear?

Phoronix is NOT the place to compare enteprise things!!! Even if your arguments are true - they mean NOTHING on this forum.
When i was clicking on comments button on this article i wasn't expecting anybody could even think to write about enterprise things, simply because it's totally OFF-TOPIC and out of phoronix's horizon!

And look at your posts here:
http://www.phoronix.com/forums/showt...t=24728&page=5
Maaan... they are horrible, that level of logic and drawing of conclusions should be denied, should be banned. Really. Im not joking now. Looks like you were sleeping on those logic lessons, or maybe your teacher was sleeping, dunno...
Also you are just "copy-pasting" your posts from one thread to another,
and that's really not nice.

One more thing - even if you were right about enterprise i wouldn't believe you because your posts really look like a fanboy's nightmare.

Please believe me that i'm not gnu/linux fanboy, I am using many many systems, and i simply can NOT tell that one, concrete system is is the best.

I don't want to insult you, I'm only saying that you really should to think about what are you doing here.

Sooo... can we end this useless OFF-TOPIC war?

[kraftman]

Oh! I just got an email saying that "Kraftman just FUD" and "should be banned from the forum". You see, Kraftman, there are lots of people thinking things about you. You should stop post FUD. I am not the only one saying so. There are several people against you here. You better calm down and use better language.

You just FUD and you should be banned. You should also stop posting FUD. I don't care if someone said you something, why should I?

I have showed you lots of research papers, white papers, benchmarks, interviews to Linux kernel developers, etc. So cut the crap talk.

Those aren't papers and some (sap ones) aren't backing up what you claim. Cut the crap talk FUDer and troll. Solaris is dead. Prove me wrong moron:

http://www.linux-mag.com/id/7749/

[kraftman]

Prove what wrong. I called you crazy. Your going on about what people think and whats common in a relationship? Crazy you are.

Haha, great point. The one of the reasons I called him sick some time ago.