Date: Fri, 22 Mar 2019 11:40:29 +0000 (UTC) From: Paul Pathiakis <pathiaki2@yahoo.com> To: Miroslav Lachman <000.fbsd@quip.cz>, Matthew Macy <mmacy@freebsd.org> Cc: "freebsd-fs@FreeBSD.org" <freebsd-fs@freebsd.org>, freebsd-performance@freebsd.org Subject: Re: FreeBSD ZFS vs. TrueOS ZoF benchmarks Message-ID: <1933758568.9695852.1553254829805@mail.yahoo.com> In-Reply-To: <CAPrugNoqXaof8AOR2kLJdkOB8w-Q-Wd3d2yk5jXadf8SF2uGcg@mail.gmail.com> References: <907466e6-1cc1-6977-6d06-20aed1200d4b@quip.cz> <CAPrugNoqXaof8AOR2kLJdkOB8w-Q-Wd3d2yk5jXadf8SF2uGcg@mail.gmail.com>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
Matt,
Meaning? How does -O0 optimization and INVARIANTS affect this?
Personally, I find everything on Phoronix "out-of-the-box" FreeBSD and optimized Linux. *shrug* Apples? Meet Oranges. I make my money as a contractor supporting RH/CentOS, but it's always funny to give people the heads up on who uses FreeBSD as their starting point and to let them know the home network runs on FreeBSD.
When people think Linux (which they believe is the only OSS "Operating System" out there) I have to explain kernel and user space and then explain FreeBSD is both and then show them the numerous CVE exploits for that year.... 150+ versus ~15. Faster is not always better, especially when you're circumventing standards to get that speed. (I remember the IIS vs Apache wars.... Turned out that IIS was not doing things properly and circumvented a lot of exploit protections for that speed.)
Building an OS that does everything well OOB, FreeBSD can do that. Optimize for application specific.... It usually wins, places or shows.
Sadly, I didn't realize that FreeNAS was using OpenZFS vs the FreeBSD ZFS. Here's my question.... Why? It was my understanding that SUN made it OSS and there are conflicts with the CDDL and GPL. It seems silly to lose performance for no reason.
As for phoronix, I read it for a laugh. It's funny how so many "Linux is everything/rules" people I meet who just use it as a shield and have never evaluated the kernels of both and the surrounding userland. The FreeBSD project is tight, goes through a proper QA and release cycle and out pops, even a x.0 release, a fully useful new OS version with everything neat, tidy, functional and fast. (So, if FreeBSD can do this, why are all the crazies that are producing software screaming AGILE and quick releases which still has not solved the problem of crap code?)
Ooops, bit of a rant.... sorry all,
Paul
On Thursday, March 21, 2019, 12:37:23 PM EDT, Matthew Macy <mmacy@freebsd.org> wrote:
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#=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"
>
_______________________________________________
freebsd-performance@freebsd.org mailing list
https://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-performance
To unsubscribe, send any mail to "freebsd-performance-unsubscribe@freebsd.org"
From owner-freebsd-performance@freebsd.org Fri Mar 22 21:42:20 2019
Return-Path: <owner-freebsd-performance@freebsd.org>
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 2A75C1552663;
Fri, 22 Mar 2019 21:42:20 +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 C0B5894AB2;
Fri, 22 Mar 2019 21:42:19 +0000 (UTC)
(envelope-from mmacy@freebsd.org)
Received: from mail-it1-f177.google.com (mail-it1-f177.google.com
[209.85.166.177])
(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 8EBF45128;
Fri, 22 Mar 2019 21:42:19 +0000 (UTC)
(envelope-from mmacy@freebsd.org)
Received: by mail-it1-f177.google.com with SMTP id h9so5671232itl.1;
Fri, 22 Mar 2019 14:42:19 -0700 (PDT)
X-Gm-Message-State: APjAAAXiOG/J7d78dgd0EJ9+6ifWH5AUdq1IH0gml/YxvJ0BAf2xTJ9s
A0T2J7QAkrsB2qUFJePh6RHH9/MAUsAYAHKLlcUX-Google-Smtp-Source: APXvYqynm/9WHTZvb+r6R7PjwAjIkNce7EcfrG9AkodAZbF65GCfKjPbJFcw5WekbW43g1vuKKJ/cUO2lzXJmRxGsi0X-Received: by 2002:a24:6f49:: with SMTP id x70mr2943614itb.102.1553290938984;
Fri, 22 Mar 2019 14:42:18 -0700 (PDT)
MIME-Version: 1.0
References: <907466e6-1cc1-6977-6d06-20aed1200d4b@quip.cz>
<CAPrugNoqXaof8AOR2kLJdkOB8w-Q-Wd3d2yk5jXadf8SF2uGcg@mail.gmail.com>
<1933758568.9695852.1553254829805@mail.yahoo.com>
In-Reply-To: <1933758568.9695852.1553254829805@mail.yahoo.com>
From: Matthew Macy <mmacy@freebsd.org>
Date: Fri, 22 Mar 2019 14:42:08 -0700
X-Gmail-Original-Message-ID: <CAPrugNpAn6CFpkRq7-ip=VHTr---B=qb12kwN+RkbTEycMOJGw@mail.gmail.com>
Message-ID: <CAPrugNpAn6CFpkRq7-ip=VHTr---B=qb12kwN+RkbTEycMOJGw@mail.gmail.com>
Subject: Re: FreeBSD ZFS vs. TrueOS ZoF benchmarks
To: Paul Pathiakis <pathiaki2@yahoo.com>
Cc: Miroslav Lachman <000.fbsd@quip.cz>,
"freebsd-fs@FreeBSD.org" <freebsd-fs@freebsd.org>,
freebsd-performance@freebsd.org
X-Rspamd-Queue-Id: C0B5894AB2
X-Spamd-Bar: --
Authentication-Results: mx1.freebsd.org
X-Spamd-Result: default: False [-2.94 / 15.00];
local_wl_from(0.00)[freebsd.org];
NEURAL_HAM_MEDIUM(-1.00)[-0.999,0];
NEURAL_HAM_SHORT(-0.95)[-0.946,0];
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: Fri, 22 Mar 2019 21:43:39 +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 <freebsd-performance.freebsd.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/options/freebsd-performance>,
<mailto:freebsd-performance-request@freebsd.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <http://lists.freebsd.org/pipermail/freebsd-performance/>;
List-Post: <mailto:freebsd-performance@freebsd.org>
List-Help: <mailto:freebsd-performance-request@freebsd.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-performance>,
<mailto:freebsd-performance-request@freebsd.org?subject=subscribe>
X-List-Received-Date: Fri, 22 Mar 2019 21:42:20 -0000
Meaning that it's pre release and the defaults are set so that users can
constructively report bugs.
On Fri, Mar 22, 2019 at 04:50 Paul Pathiakis <pathiaki2@yahoo.com> wrote:
> Matt,
>
> Meaning? How does -O0 optimization and INVARIANTS affect this?
>
> Personally, I find everything on Phoronix "out-of-the-box" FreeBSD and
> optimized Linux. *shrug* Apples? Meet Oranges. I make my money as a
> contractor supporting RH/CentOS, but it's always funny to give people the
> heads up on who uses FreeBSD as their starting point and to let them know
> the home network runs on FreeBSD.
>
> When people think Linux (which they believe is the only OSS "Operating
> System" out there) I have to explain kernel and user space and then
> explain FreeBSD is both and then show them the numerous CVE exploits for
> that year.... 150+ versus ~15. Faster is not always better, especially
> when you're circumventing standards to get that speed. (I remember the IIS
> vs Apache wars.... Turned out that IIS was not doing things properly and
> circumvented a lot of exploit protections for that speed.)
>
> Building an OS that does everything well OOB, FreeBSD can do that.
> Optimize for application specific.... It usually wins, places or shows.
>
> Sadly, I didn't realize that FreeNAS was using OpenZFS vs the FreeBSD
> ZFS. Here's my question.... Why? It was my understanding that SUN made it
> OSS and there are conflicts with the CDDL and GPL. It seems silly to lose
> performance for no reason.
>
> As for phoronix, I read it for a laugh. It's funny how so many "Linux is
> everything/rules" people I meet who just use it as a shield and have never
> evaluated the kernels of both and the surrounding userland. The FreeBSD
> project is tight, goes through a proper QA and release cycle and out pops,
> even a x.0 release, a fully useful new OS version with everything neat,
> tidy, functional and fast. (So, if FreeBSD can do this, why are all the
> crazies that are producing software screaming AGILE and quick releases
> which still has not solved the problem of crap code?)
>
> Ooops, bit of a rant.... sorry all,
>
> Paul
>
>
>
> On Thursday, March 21, 2019, 12:37:23 PM EDT, Matthew Macy <
> mmacy@freebsd.org> wrote:
>
>
> 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#=1
> <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"
>
> >
> _______________________________________________
> freebsd-performance@freebsd.org mailing list
> https://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-performance
> To unsubscribe, send any mail to "
> freebsd-performance-unsubscribe@freebsd.org"
>
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?1933758568.9695852.1553254829805>