From owner-freebsd-performance@freebsd.org Thu Mar 21 16:31:08 2019 Return-Path: Delivered-To: freebsd-performance@mailman.ysv.freebsd.org Received: from mx1.freebsd.org (mx1.freebsd.org [IPv6:2610:1c1:1:606c::19:1]) by mailman.ysv.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 34EF81547856; Thu, 21 Mar 2019 16:31:08 +0000 (UTC) (envelope-from mmacy@freebsd.org) Received: from smtp.freebsd.org (smtp.freebsd.org [96.47.72.83]) (using TLSv1.3 with cipher TLS_AES_256_GCM_SHA384 (256/256 bits) server-signature RSA-PSS (4096 bits) client-signature RSA-PSS (4096 bits) client-digest SHA256) (Client CN "smtp.freebsd.org", Issuer "Let's Encrypt Authority X3" (verified OK)) by mx1.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id CA6B06C530; Thu, 21 Mar 2019 16:31:07 +0000 (UTC) (envelope-from mmacy@freebsd.org) Received: from mail-io1-f43.google.com (mail-io1-f43.google.com [209.85.166.43]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES128-GCM-SHA256 (128/128 bits)) (Client CN "smtp.gmail.com", Issuer "GTS CA 1O1" (verified OK)) (Authenticated sender: mmacy) by smtp.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTPSA id 9482D18CB0; Thu, 21 Mar 2019 16:31:07 +0000 (UTC) (envelope-from mmacy@freebsd.org) Received: by mail-io1-f43.google.com with SMTP id b6so5787364iog.0; Thu, 21 Mar 2019 09:31:07 -0700 (PDT) X-Gm-Message-State: APjAAAXnGCkBg8zRR23HTvM1XAy55B81vA0FaKkrR+IOaneq9KSLChVY 086trya883grcLqwXU2AEdhxA0ZVaH5je23Ni9k= X-Google-Smtp-Source: APXvYqxChzBIxz7GkLZszTPH4iDwX5+luL3VHxGOz1EpnP/4o+xVMsTjUXBwSCUsFHUtnnNz1a6vBCXoXEKv3bY9L5Y= X-Received: by 2002:a6b:e206:: with SMTP id z6mr3269440ioc.237.1553185867010; Thu, 21 Mar 2019 09:31:07 -0700 (PDT) MIME-Version: 1.0 References: <907466e6-1cc1-6977-6d06-20aed1200d4b@quip.cz> In-Reply-To: <907466e6-1cc1-6977-6d06-20aed1200d4b@quip.cz> From: Matthew Macy Date: Thu, 21 Mar 2019 09:30:56 -0700 X-Gmail-Original-Message-ID: Message-ID: Subject: Re: FreeBSD ZFS vs. TrueOS ZoF benchmarks To: Miroslav Lachman <000.fbsd@quip.cz> Cc: "freebsd-fs@FreeBSD.org" , freebsd-performance@freebsd.org X-Rspamd-Queue-Id: CA6B06C530 X-Spamd-Bar: -- Authentication-Results: mx1.freebsd.org X-Spamd-Result: default: False [-2.96 / 15.00]; local_wl_from(0.00)[freebsd.org]; NEURAL_HAM_MEDIUM(-1.00)[-0.999,0]; NEURAL_HAM_SHORT(-0.97)[-0.965,0]; ASN(0.00)[asn:11403, ipnet:96.47.64.0/20, country:US]; NEURAL_HAM_LONG(-1.00)[-1.000,0] X-Mailman-Approved-At: Thu, 21 Mar 2019 16:36:47 +0000 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8" X-Content-Filtered-By: Mailman/MimeDel 2.1.29 X-BeenThere: freebsd-performance@freebsd.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.29 Precedence: list List-Id: Performance/tuning List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Thu, 21 Mar 2019 16:31:08 -0000 These were run with ZoF compiled with -O0 and INVARIANTS. Take what you read with a grain of salt. On Thu, Mar 21, 2019 at 09:28 Miroslav Lachman <000.fbsd@quip.cz> wrote: > There is a benchmark comparing ZFS in FreeBSD 12 with ZFS in TrueOS > based on ZFSonFreeBSD 9https://zfsonfreebsd.github.io/ZoF/0 > > FreeBSD ZFS vs. TrueOS ZoF vs. DragonFlyBSD HAMMER2 vs. ZFS On Linux > Benchmarks > https://www.phoronix.com/scan.php?page=article&item=bsd-initial-zof&num=1 > > I am interested if there will be enough testing before replacing the > official FreeBSD code base with ZoF. ZFS in FreeBSD 12 is much faster so > I am afraid if FreeBSD based on ZoF will be as fast as our current > implementation of ZFS. > > Kind regards > Miroslav Lachman > _______________________________________________ > freebsd-fs@freebsd.org mailing list > https://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-fs > To unsubscribe, send any mail to "freebsd-fs-unsubscribe@freebsd.org" >