Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

Benchmarking ZFS On FreeBSD vs. EXT4 & Btrfs On Linux

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

  • bewst
    replied
    RAID tests

    Originally posted by karl View Post
    I don't think ZFS was designed with this test in mind: one laptop hdd.
    The test should be done with multiple hdd arrays...
    I have some reasonably current speed numbers here, for anyone who cares about the actual results. Obviously it's not the same comparison. ZFS-Fuse has come a long way since then, apparently, and I didn't test any EXT filesystems.

    Leave a comment:


  • kebabbert
    replied
    [QUOTE=smitty3268;140991]LOL. I have to laugh at that, because it's exactly the same thing you've done to others.
    I did not understand this one. I explained that, for various reasons, top500 does not say much about a technique or OS that is used. PowerPC at 750MHz is the 5th best CPU in the world you think? No? Good.


    Originally posted by smitty3268 View Post
    You're wrong about that, incredible amounts of research, effort, and money go into doing those things.
    No, I am correct again, and you are wrong.

    It is much easier to do one thing that is specializing than to do a general purpose thing. Study some computer science and you will see.

    For instance, which is most difficult to reach high performance: a general purpose CPU or a specialized simple GPU? It is the same with RISC and CISC. Or with DSP. Again, study some more, instead of writing down weird things.

    To do one thing well, is easier to do than to excel at many different things. Common sense. Or, study some more.

    Leave a comment:


  • kebabbert
    replied
    Kebabbert wrote:
    "You even posted a benchmark where one Linux fanboy compared one old 800 MHz sparc Solaris vs a intel dual core 2.4GHz Linux and you think that is a good benchmark because Linux won. "
    Originally posted by kraftman View Post
    Yes, and you even posted two SAP unrelated papers, how is it different?
    Again, Solaris used slower hardware, slower CPUs, slower RAM sticks. Solaris won over Linux thanx to higher cpu utilization. Solaris used the cpus better, and could win. In other words: Solaris scaled better than Linux.

    The SAP benchmark does not need 128GB RAM to run at full speed. I can email to SAP and ask how many GB RAM the SAP benchmark needs. Maybe it is 8GB RAM or 12GB?

    If you dont see the difference between benchmarks

    A) Solaris wins on slightly slower hardware 2.6 GHz vs Linux 2.8 GHz

    B) Solaris looses on 800 Mhz SPARC vs Linux dual core 2.4GHz

    Then there is something wrong with your logic. Sorry, but I can not help you. You need professional help by a psychiatrist or something similar. I know Math and Comp sci, not psychiatry. I can not help you over the internet with your pyschic problems, sorry.











    Papers, please. Linux dev said Bonwick is a FUDer and a lier. You're lying now saying Bonwick is not making things up nor lie.
    Jesus Kraftman. There IS something wrong with your logic. You can not go on like that, that is not constructive discussion. You are just trying to evade the issue. If you use that non constructive technique, I can do the same as you do. Then maybe you see how idiotic it looks like when someone does to you, what you do to them?


    Papers please. I want to see research papers by professors, saying that Bonwick is a FUDer and Liar. Otherwise you are lying about Bonwick.

    You say I FUD a lot. Papers please. Otherwise you lie.

    You say Linux scales well. Papers please. Otherwise you lie.

    You say Linux is stable. Papers please. Otherwise you lie.

    You say whatever or anything. Papers please. Otherwise you lie.


    Does not this technique you use, sound quite idiotic, you think? It sounds idiotic when I do the same thing to you, but it does not sound idiotic when you do this to others? Jesus Kraftman. Seriously, you sound like a fourth grader. Your logic is weird.

    How old are you? Seriously. Are you like 15 years? If you are, then it explains everything, why you dont know anything about research, or how to establish proofs, or how to study at university, and explains your twisted logic that just sounds idiotic in many aspects. Seriously. I have never met an adult reasoning like you. I mean it. How old are you, Kraftman? This is a serious question. Are you under 20 years?

    Leave a comment:


  • smitty3268
    replied
    Originally posted by kebabbert View Post
    Top500. Jesus not that one again. I have posted ~10 times about top500 and explained how top500 does not count.
    LOL. I have to laugh at that, because it's exactly the same thing you've done to others.

    Specialized hardware is easy to do. Specialized kernel is easy to do.
    You're wrong about that, incredible amounts of research, effort, and money go into doing those things.

    Leave a comment:


  • kebabbert
    replied
    Kebabbert wrote:
    "Because you have not read this thread from the beginning, I post this article again. Here is a link to a research paper about how XFS, JFS, ReiserFS, etc does not protect your data - which is what I have claimed earler."
    http://www.zdnet.com/blog/storage/ho...ta-at-risk/169
    Originally posted by kraftman View Post
    So, when I post to blog it's wrong, but when Kebabbert posts to blogs it's good?
    No, wrong again Kraftman. If you read my text, I actually say: "on that blog there is a link to RESEARCH PAPER". So I mean that you should go to that blog, to see the actual research papers. Of course I could have posted the link directly to the research paper, would that have been better?

    Of course it is not credible to post to blogs. But if the blog links to research papers then you can post to that blog. Or if the blog links to for instance, official benchmarks. It is not necessary to link directly to the research paper or the official benchmark.

    Jesus Kraftman, we had this discussion before. Earlier I posted to a Sun blog with links to official SAP benchmarks (Solaris wins over Linux) on www.sap.com, but you said something like: the SAP benchmarks where FUD and created by Sun. You said that SAP have partnership with Sun and therefore SAP favours Solaris in official benchmarks. I showed you links that SAP have partnership with several Linux companies - so why did SAP not favour all Linux companies? Jesus Kraftman.

    When Linux wins, everything is good. It does not matter if Linux uses gcc v4.xx 64bit vs OpenSolaris uses different gcc v3.xx 32 bit - you think that are good benchmarks and dont complain. But when Solaris wins, that is bad offical benchmark published by SAP and you say companies favour Sun and it is FUD benchmark. Unbelievable logic.



    Kebabbert wrote:
    "I have also posted several research papers which backs up my claim about ZFS giving good protection, whereas common filesystems (including Raid-5 and raid-6) do not offer good data protection.

    Do you want me to repost those research papers for you?"

    I'd love to you repost them. Btw. I want to see proofs there backing all you have claimed before.
    Jesus Kraftman. If you had read my posts, then you would have seen those research papers. I do not FUD. Read this post again if you want to see some research papers. I have more research papers about data corruption that I can post if anyone asks me.
    http://www.phoronix.com/forums/showp...1&postcount=44



    FUD. I'm claiming your not posting to papers which backups your claims.
    Fine. I understand I FUDs a lot, in your reality. But, you on the other hand have never linked to any research papers or almost no credible links at all. And you have CONFESSED you do FUD. So, really, I dont really understand how you can accuse me of FUDing? (But, there are lots of things I dont understand about you). So it is ok if you think I FUD, especially as you can not prove that I FUD or lie. It is just more FUD from you, about me.

    But I can prove that you FUD, I just link to the post where you confess you are a FUDer. Done. Kraftman = FUD and lies.

    Leave a comment:


  • kebabbert
    replied
    Originally posted by energyman View Post
    Solaris did so well, the former behemoth Sun was taken over by Oracle. Should tell everybody a lot.
    Also Top500. Look at it.
    Sun did well techincally. From a business view point, Sun did not do well. Windows is better business thatn Linux (MS earns more money) - does this mean that Windows is better technically, than Linux? Of course not. Wrong.

    Top500. Jesus not that one again. I have posted ~10 times about top500 and explained how top500 does not count. Here is another explaination. At place 5(?) is Blue Gene. Blue Gene uses something like 700MHz PowerPC cpus. Now, according to your logic, 700MHz PowerPC is among the fastest CPUs in the world! Correct, or wrong?

    Read my earlier posts about top500. It says nothing. Super computers do only one thing well. Specialized hardware is easy to do. Specialized kernel is easy to do. Super computers are basically a network with lots of PCs. Linux scales well horizontally, but not veritaclly.

    Leave a comment:


  • energyman
    replied
    Solaris did so well, the former behemoth Sun was taken over by Oracle. Should tell everybody a lot.
    Also Top500. Look at it.

    Leave a comment:


  • Jimbo
    replied
    Originally posted by doubledr View Post
    "There is only one full time paid developer" So?
    Nothing, it is fine under my POV. But use this to kick btrfs development, a lot of devs from lot of companies are development it, is unfair and fud.

    -Oracle has not invested much in BTRFS, one full time developer has been paid for some time. BTRFS has not delivered yet, it is only hype at this stage.

    -In my opinion, if Oracle really wants to bet on BTRFS, Oracle should have assigned a whole team of developers to BTRFS. But guess what? There is only one single developer on BTRFS. Oracle is not interested in BTRFS, now that they got the best: ZFS. Come on, do you really expect BTRFS is a serious attempt by Oracle? There is only ONE full time developer! Jesus. Who are you trying to fool?

    Leave a comment:


  • kraftman
    replied
    Originally posted by kebabbert View Post
    Linux used faster hardware, faster CPU and faster RAM, and still lost that SAP benchmark. That is testament to Linux had low cpu utilization: 87%. Whereas Solaris had 99% cpu utilization. That is the reason won, on slower hardware.
    Solaris run different database, Oracle database. Afaik Solaris machine had twice amount of RAM more then Linux machine. Solaris server was also much more expensive then Linux server. It's possible, like it was said before Solaris server was much more expensive, because somebody cared to optimize this server for maximum CPU utilization. It's not a proof it scales better then Linux

    You are contradicting yourself. You accept benchmarks like FreeBSD vs Linux vs OpenSolaris without problem. Even though they do not use same software or gcc version: one of them compiles to 64bit, the other compiles to 32 bit. One uses gcc v3.xx and the other uses gcc v4.xx. And you think those benhcmarks are fair because Linux wins.
    Why are you lying? I don't think such comparisons are fair and I don't treat them as proofs. Stop lying, please.

    You even posted a benchmark where one Linux fanboy compared one old 800 MHz sparc Solaris vs a intel dual core 2.4GHz Linux and you think that is a good benchmark because Linux won.
    Yes, and you even posted two SAP unrelated papers, how is it different?

    You accept benchmarks on different hardware and different software when Linux win, and reject all benchmarks when Linux loose.
    You want me to accept benchmarks done on a different hardware. I consider it's fair benchmarking defaults like Phoronix does and if I claim Linux is faster it's not, because of Phoronix benchmarks, but because I believe so and because I saw things which suggest this.

    You sir, you are a humbug and a liar.
    It's you who's lying.

    I have posted several links to non-Solaris developers. Even Linux developers. But you reject even those links, even to Linus T.
    I don't consider those were proofs or papers, those were personal opinions which neither proof nor show Linux code is worse then Solaris.

    Regarding Bonwick, there are many experts that thinks he is correct. Bonwick (the ZFS main architect) has written negative things about Linux, but that is not FUD. That is relevant criticizm. There are lots of experts agreeing with Bonwick on his Linux criticism. Bonwick is not making things up nor lie out of nothing - he has most probably talked to other experts and Enterprise sysadmins.
    Papers, please. Linux dev said Bonwick is a FUDer and a lier. You're lying now saying Bonwick is not making things up nor lie.

    Leave a comment:


  • kraftman
    replied
    Originally posted by kebabbert View Post
    Because you have not read this thread from the beginning, I post this article again. Here is a link to a research paper about how XFS, JFS, ReiserFS, etc does not protect your data - which is what I have claimed earler.
    http://www.zdnet.com/blog/storage/ho...ta-at-risk/169
    So, when I post to blog it's wrong, but when Kebabbert posts to blogs it's good?

    [QUOTE]I have also posted several research papers which backs up my claim about ZFS giving good protection, whereas common filesystems (including Raid-5 and raid-6) do not offer good data protection.

    Do you want me to repost those research papers for you?[QUOTE]

    I'd love to you repost them. Btw. I want to see proofs there backing all you have claimed before.


    Nevermind Kraftman, claiming I do not post to research papers., He just lies about me
    FUD. I'm claiming your not posting to papers which backups your claims.

    Leave a comment:

Working...
X