From owner-freebsd-performance@freebsd.org Fri Mar 22 11:50:42 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 94FBF1541AB9 for ; Fri, 22 Mar 2019 11:50:42 +0000 (UTC) (envelope-from pathiaki2@yahoo.com) Received: from sonic309-20.consmr.mail.ne1.yahoo.com (sonic309-20.consmr.mail.ne1.yahoo.com [66.163.184.146]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES128-GCM-SHA256 (128/128 bits)) (Client did not present a certificate) by mx1.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 831FE76E43 for ; Fri, 22 Mar 2019 11:50:41 +0000 (UTC) (envelope-from pathiaki2@yahoo.com) X-YMail-OSG: 27_HxnkVM1lAXmYsoP5HGfPOYMZhhm1IfyTPLfmqthHBledsUk2VxcOHL6PNwTP vb08e6C55.qYHNg7rqIIbqsY3hDqC6g2Cr_RtYU2VdPH0Y3pZIpVmrJ77Kb1IM5Ec89L2YmTKeQC cq2rkAbnZmv.IW7xyiTs0o0hg52V_bV38LYVL2rmKKKViZgnSGAHBHSffto93BRQTwVnuiWiUojW qDTDRwCw9Uz1pt6Lxzhpdw_5myEVh0d1D6iJZwnN.uO8Oji7gmcv46wSh3H8wXtNU1P31RZj6YbE ACAGhHQJABiAw9opl5l7fQCgXTa5XvSxfm1kxc69lj_qyOTJhcenjVfCd4N87g0oRuy79IvZtERe ia40PW1E3QpwMaS_EwTnqQCuvCYZJM.F61VvANFBeXxFnE2dXZFmkDjoRAUb9__Zwu9kYq5Z3iSx WK4JgFf1Yi4V9dJPqjvcwqNONR3tzvqCMUO6egCFoVh3KxuIUUw6hq.mEfOhUGNVVDNYfzxWyBP3 02sYvVvBaDo6AMFYzHOlETUu7lqUXSm.g2Bc7siWuTVPNolezcrqcZgLgEtbKFoRZBTCMEYNicpr jZzUxyIALDoOXrKWgEMwq06t7T7rQdoxN.RZB1V1N6nd5ndboBG.hPltNFNlrG6nHe.MjklgLNzO k10QTFrJ9Q3A4Nmij86ewrDY60NIbOhMAL0WRr3jJGiGWhONWxTxXlslOt4WLJiz8RGuTtBT7ZCl .VlDKLlev3qqUkKqvUJT1zmWof7aNeNSxR3zFXZdfFG1wSMwbUye1j1EYRlbfs5w.jLW62PqiSBi _jtOk4pd63Riz0LZmttiQqGk8dqrGrz5j.GWxpeXsy9CwWml8NZ.XaXfhnZezDr0jceN1NcGnCyH I.KZWEJSziiO3LPEW.DMhQugMe1uc_6jkRH8_.ULN_JyRYIcJxd9f24ezch6J0X9Fu5Vd9jHCq2k FPt_A.i6OjpIZ10AvEsZzCqN3LjagJynXONFs3t.zk1UK4ei4It1g2.BuJlRx59M_2Mi0XBGS9l8 mUNITnk0mPJwvMcShZwExhkxVzUWqcqEvOQHlv98wJy.vZfhF7SkoEaQiNZ6h3y9mild9_iGSg99 kFYWFbAvr7U9rT40EC2MjUi6ROIaeYvmMJHmDStWn2kW3tfWz21A.wfFxUVMrkA-- Received: from sonic.gate.mail.ne1.yahoo.com by sonic309.consmr.mail.ne1.yahoo.com with HTTP; Fri, 22 Mar 2019 11:50:40 +0000 Date: Fri, 22 Mar 2019 11:40:29 +0000 (UTC) From: Paul Pathiakis To: Miroslav Lachman <000.fbsd@quip.cz>, Matthew Macy Cc: "freebsd-fs@FreeBSD.org" , freebsd-performance@freebsd.org Message-ID: <1933758568.9695852.1553254829805@mail.yahoo.com> In-Reply-To: References: <907466e6-1cc1-6977-6d06-20aed1200d4b@quip.cz> Subject: Re: FreeBSD ZFS vs. TrueOS ZoF benchmarks MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Mailer: WebService/1.1.13212 YMailNorrin Mozilla/5.0 (Windows NT 6.1; WOW64; rv:60.0) Gecko/20100101 Firefox/60.0 X-Rspamd-Queue-Id: 831FE76E43 X-Spamd-Bar: +++ X-Spamd-Result: default: False [3.01 / 15.00]; ARC_NA(0.00)[]; TO_DN_EQ_ADDR_SOME(0.00)[]; R_DKIM_ALLOW(-0.20)[yahoo.com:s=s2048]; FROM_HAS_DN(0.00)[]; RCPT_COUNT_THREE(0.00)[4]; R_SPF_ALLOW(-0.20)[+ptr:yahoo.com]; FREEMAIL_FROM(0.00)[yahoo.com]; MIME_GOOD(-0.10)[multipart/alternative,text/plain]; RCVD_TLS_LAST(0.00)[]; TO_DN_SOME(0.00)[]; NEURAL_SPAM_MEDIUM(0.97)[0.966,0]; TO_MATCH_ENVRCPT_SOME(0.00)[]; NEURAL_SPAM_SHORT(0.98)[0.985,0]; DKIM_TRACE(0.00)[yahoo.com:+]; MX_GOOD(-0.01)[cached: mta6.am0.yahoodns.net]; RCVD_IN_DNSWL_NONE(0.00)[146.184.163.66.list.dnswl.org : 127.0.5.0]; DMARC_POLICY_ALLOW(-0.50)[yahoo.com,reject]; IP_SCORE(1.18)[ip: (3.80), ipnet: 66.163.184.0/21(1.20), asn: 36646(0.96), country: US(-0.07)]; NEURAL_SPAM_LONG(0.89)[0.892,0]; FROM_EQ_ENVFROM(0.00)[]; MIME_TRACE(0.00)[0:+,1:+]; FREEMAIL_ENVFROM(0.00)[yahoo.com]; ASN(0.00)[asn:36646, ipnet:66.163.184.0/21, country:US]; RCVD_COUNT_TWO(0.00)[2]; DWL_DNSWL_NONE(0.00)[yahoo.com.dwl.dnswl.org : 127.0.5.0] Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable 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: Fri, 22 Mar 2019 11:50:42 -0000 Matt, Meaning?=C2=A0 How does -O0 optimization and INVARIANTS affect this?=C2=A0= =20 Personally, I find everything on Phoronix "out-of-the-box" FreeBSD and opti= mized Linux.=C2=A0 *shrug*=C2=A0 Apples? Meet Oranges.=C2=A0 I make my mone= y as a contractor supporting RH/CentOS, but it's always funny to give peopl= e 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 Syst= em" out there)=C2=A0 I have to explain kernel and user space and then expla= in FreeBSD is both and then show them the numerous CVE exploits for that ye= ar.... 150+ versus ~15.=C2=A0 Faster is not always better, especially when = you're circumventing standards to get that speed. (I remember the IIS vs Ap= ache wars....=C2=A0 Turned out that IIS was not doing things properly and c= ircumvented a lot of exploit protections for that speed.)=C2=A0=20 Building an OS that does everything well OOB, FreeBSD can do that.=C2=A0 Op= timize for application specific....=C2=A0 It usually wins, places or shows.= =C2=A0=20 Sadly, I didn't realize that FreeNAS was using OpenZFS vs the FreeBSD ZFS.= =C2=A0 Here's my question.... Why?=C2=A0 It was my understanding that SUN m= ade it OSS and there are conflicts with the CDDL and GPL.=C2=A0 It seems si= lly to lose performance for no reason. As for phoronix, I read it for a laugh.=C2=A0 It's funny how so many "Linux= is everything/rules" people I meet who just use it as a shield and have ne= ver evaluated the kernels of both and the surrounding userland.=C2=A0 The F= reeBSD 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 ne= at, tidy, functional and fast.=C2=A0 (So, if FreeBSD can do this, why are a= ll the crazies that are producing software screaming AGILE and quick releas= es 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 wrote: =20 =20 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=3Darticle&item=3Dbsd-initial-zof#= =3D1 > > 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.o= rg" =20 From owner-freebsd-performance@freebsd.org Fri Mar 22 21:42:20 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 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/MAUsAYAHKLlcU= X-Google-Smtp-Source: APXvYqynm/9WHTZvb+r6R7PjwAjIkNce7EcfrG9AkodAZbF65GCfKjPbJFcw5WekbW43g1vuKKJ/cUO2lzXJmRxGsi0= X-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> <1933758568.9695852.1553254829805@mail.yahoo.com> In-Reply-To: <1933758568.9695852.1553254829805@mail.yahoo.com> From: Matthew Macy Date: Fri, 22 Mar 2019 14:42:08 -0700 X-Gmail-Original-Message-ID: Message-ID: Subject: Re: FreeBSD ZFS vs. TrueOS ZoF benchmarks To: Paul Pathiakis Cc: Miroslav Lachman <000.fbsd@quip.cz>, "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 List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-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 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 > > > > > 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" >