Benchmarking ZFS On FreeBSD vs. EXT4 & Btrfs On Linux

[kraftman]

@kebabbert

Can you stop hijacking the thread with such bull?

[kebabbert]

No. Afaik XEN was too bloated (its design was messed up, so it would pollute the kernel areas which weren't polluted by KVM, beause its design was smarter). So, in theory zfs could pollute some kernel areas due to its bloated design while other Linux file systems don't pollute them.

Ehrm. We know Linux kernel has problems, bad code quality, bugs, etc. Even some Linux kernel devs even say Linux is bloated. We have never seen anyone saying ZFS is bloated.

Now you are just FUDing again. Just as when you write Solaris is buggy, slow, etc. I have asked you to show links on this, but you never have. Unless you can show links with some credibility, you are just FUDing. As usual.


And, what do you mean I post "bull"? Do I lie? I dont lie, like you do. I post links and research papers, articles, etc. Do you claim the PhD researchers lie in their article? I just quote them. I dont make anything up, like you Linux fanatics do. Linus T SAYS Linux is bloated, and if you read that interview, it is clear what Linus T means. He means it is bloated.

Look, you can call me posting bull, when I make things up. When I lie. When I say things with no credibility, such as "I talked to someone who said Linux crashed an entire nuclear plant" - if there is no proof then that could be lies and FUD. I post no Lies nor FUD.



Of course I strongly critizice Linux - but that is not lies, nor FUD, nor Troll. That is relevant criticism. Criticism is a different thing from FUD or Lies. Not the same thing. You can criticize without Lie. Like me.

[kraftman]

I dont say that BTRFS is slower than ZFS. I am only saying to the BTRFS fans that say ZFS is slow; ZFS can give huge performance, far surpassing for instance, BTRFS.

Show me.

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. But on top of that, ZFS gives DATA INTEGRITY. That is the ONLY reason to run ZFS. Sure, ZFS is extremely fast in Enterprise settings but that is not the reason to use ZFS. It is data safety.

ZFS isn't safe and it's slow and bloated. Btrfs comes to kill it. While data integrity is the only reason to run it then it's worse in everything else.

BTW, Phoronix doesnt do Enterprise benchmarks. If Phoronix did, Linux would loose on every benchmark. Solaris is since long, targeted to Enterprise. Not Desktop. Phoronix only do Desktop benchmarks: single computer, 8 cores benchmarks, single disc, etc. That is chicken shit. When we talk about large Enterprise stuff, then Linux just doesnt cut it. Linux is a great DesktopOS. I admit it. Linux is better DesktopOS than OpenSolaris or Solaris.

Slowlaris is dead and its run by those who had contracts etc. Linux kills slowlaris in enterprise. Show me Linux would loose every benchmark, because what I saw it's slowlaris which is loosing. You lie Orvar Korvar, a known troll from osnews.com.

[kraftman]

Of course I strongly critizice Linux - but that is not lies, nor FUD, nor Troll. That is relevant criticism. Criticism is a different thing from FUD or Lies. Not the same thing. You can criticize without Lie. Like me.

It's not a criticizm moron, because those aren't papers you're basing on and thus you're a troll, fudder and a lier. You see Orvar, in the big picturer you're a moron. We all know Linux surpases, bloated, slow, insecure, buggy slowlaris.

[kebabbert]

Kraftman, now you are FUDing again. You are just a FUDer. Poor Kraftboy, cant you stop FUD? Try it, it is not hard to do. Try to post only things you have read from research papers, articles in scientific journals, etc, and do not make things up nor lie. Try that. Just like I do.

I got PM from people called you "insane". I wonder why they think so, of you?

[kraftman]

http://osdir.com/ml/os.solaris.opensolaris.performance/2006-01/msg00020.html

Solaris feels so bloated and forking processes on it is so slow. Also,some applications consume a lot more CPU time on Solaris.Why is that, Korvar?

[kebabbert]

It's not a criticizm moron, because those aren't papers you're basing on and thus you're a troll, fudder and a lier.

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]

Kraftman, now you are FUDing again. You are just a FUDer. Poor Kraftboy, cant you stop FUD? Try it, it is not hard to do. Try to post only things you have read from research papers, articles in scientific journals, etc, and do not make things up nor lie. Try that. Just like I do.

I got PM from people called you "insane". I wonder why they think so, of you?

White papers, you didn't backup your claims by whitepapers poor Orvar. There's some draft probably sponsored by sun, but it's a draft only, probaby because sun feared to release it as a final, because Linux guys could reply then. Where are your papers FUDer?

[kraftman]

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?

You didn't show papers, so you're FUDing and trolling.

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?

It's relevant criticism when paper exist, but you didn't show papers backing up your claims. When the things you say are truth in your opinion?

[doubledr]

kebabbert, we want to see the papers that support your claims. Please provide at least titles and authors. Otherwise, you are a FUDer