From owner-freebsd-current@FreeBSD.ORG  Thu Dec 15 14:44:40 2011
Return-Path: <owner-freebsd-current@FreeBSD.ORG>
Delivered-To: freebsd-current@freebsd.org
Received: from mx1.freebsd.org (mx1.freebsd.org [IPv6:2001:4f8:fff6::34])
	by hub.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 87A0C1065677;
	Thu, 15 Dec 2011 14:44:40 +0000 (UTC) (envelope-from sem@FreeBSD.org)
Received: from mail.ciam.ru (mail.ciam.ru [91.209.218.18])
	by mx1.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 315948FC0C;
	Thu, 15 Dec 2011 14:44:40 +0000 (UTC)
Received: from dhcp170-160-red.yandex.net ([95.108.170.160]
	helo=dhcp170-205-red.yandex.net)
	by mail.ciam.ru with esmtpa (Exim 4.x)
	id 1RbCGG-0004u8-IB; Thu, 15 Dec 2011 17:26:16 +0300
Message-ID: <4EEA0388.7010605@FreeBSD.org>
Date: Thu, 15 Dec 2011 18:26:16 +0400
From: Sergey Matveychuk <sem@FreeBSD.org>
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows NT 6.1; WOW64;
	rv:8.0) Gecko/20111105 Thunderbird/8.0
MIME-Version: 1.0
To: Michael Larabel <michael.larabel@phoronix.com>
References: <4EE1EAFE.3070408@m5p.com>
	<CAJ-FndDniGH8QoT=kUxOQ+zdVhWF0Z0NKLU0PGS-Gt=BK6noWw@mail.gmail.com>
	<4EE2AE64.9060802@m5p.com> <4EE88343.2050302@m5p.com>
	<CAFHbX1+5PttyZuNnYot8emTn_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>
	<4EE9F7D2.4050607@phoronix.com>
In-Reply-To: <4EE9F7D2.4050607@phoronix.com>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8; format=flowed
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit
Cc: 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
X-BeenThere: freebsd-current@freebsd.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.5
Precedence: list
List-Id: Discussions about the use of FreeBSD-current
	<freebsd-current.freebsd.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-current>, 
	<mailto:freebsd-current-request@freebsd.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <http://lists.freebsd.org/pipermail/freebsd-current>
List-Post: <mailto:freebsd-current@freebsd.org>
List-Help: <mailto:freebsd-current-request@freebsd.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-current>,
	<mailto:freebsd-current-request@freebsd.org?subject=subscribe>
X-List-Received-Date: Thu, 15 Dec 2011 14:44:40 -0000

15.12.2011 17:36, Michael Larabel пишет:
> On 12/15/2011 07:25 AM, Stefan Esser wrote:
>> Am 15.12.2011 11:10, schrieb Michael Larabel:
>>> No, the same hardware was used for each OS.
>>>
>>> In terms of the software, the stock software stack for each OS was used.
>> 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?
>
> I was running some ZFS vs. UFS tests as well and this happened to have
> ZFS on when I was running some other tests.
>

Can we look at the tests?
My opinion is ZFS without tuning is much slower than UFS2.