Date: Thu, 15 Dec 2011 15:51:33 +0200 From: Daniel Kalchev <daniel@digsys.bg> To: Stefan Esser <se@freebsd.org> Cc: Michael Larabel <michael.larabel@phoronix.com>, FreeBSD Stable Mailing List <freebsd-stable@freebsd.org>, Current FreeBSD <freebsd-current@freebsd.org>, Michael Ross <gmx@ross.cx>, freebsd-performance@freebsd.org, "O. Hartmann" <ohartman@zedat.fu-berlin.de>, Jeremy Chadwick <freebsd@jdc.parodius.com> Subject: Re: Benchmark (Phoronix): FreeBSD 9.0-RC2 vs. Oracle Linux 6.1 Server Message-ID: <E76CA6AF-4109-4627-AF9B-D1C7C4C6D4E2@digsys.bg> In-Reply-To: <4EE9F546.6060503@freebsd.org> References: <4EE1EAFE.3070408@m5p.com> <CAJ-FndDniGH8QoT=kUxOQ%2BzdVhWF0Z0NKLU0PGS-Gt=BK6noWw@mail.gmail.com> <4EE2AE64.9060802@m5p.com> <4EE88343.2050302@m5p.com> <CAFHbX1%2B5PttyZuNnYot8emTn_AWkABdJCvnpo5rcRxVXj0ypJA@mail.gmail.com> <4EE933C6.4020209@zedat.fu-berlin.de> <CAPjTQNEJDE17TLH-mDrG_-_Qa9R5N3mSeXSYYWtqz_DFidzYQw@mail.gmail.com> <20111215024249.GA13557@icarus.home.lan> <4EE9A2A0.80607@zedat.fu-berlin.de> <op.v6iv3qe5g7njmm@michael-think> <4EE9C79B.7080607@phoronix.com> <4EE9F546.6060503@freebsd.org>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
On Dec 15, 2011, at 3:25 PM, Stefan Esser wrote: > Am 15.12.2011 11:10, schrieb Michael Larabel: >> No, the same hardware was used for each OS. >>=20 >> In terms of the software, the stock software stack for each OS was = used. >=20 > Just curious: Why did you choose ZFS on FreeBSD, while UFS2 (with > journaling enabled) should be an obvious choice since it is more = similar > in concept to ext4 and since that is what most FreeBSD users will use > with FreeBSD? Or perhaps, since it is "server" Linux distribution, use ZFS on Linux as = well. With identical tuning on both Linux and FreeBSD. Having the same = FS used by both OS will help make the comparison more sensible for FS = I/O. Daniel=
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?E76CA6AF-4109-4627-AF9B-D1C7C4C6D4E2>