Date: Sun, 7 Feb 2010 17:21:50 +0000 From: Frank Shute <frank@shute.org.uk> To: alex <alex@mailinglist.ahhyes.net> Cc: freebsd-questions@freebsd.org Subject: Re: FreeBSD's UFS vs Ext4 Message-ID: <20100207172150.GA59080@orange.esperance-linux.co.uk> In-Reply-To: <4B6ED119.2060308@mailinglist.ahhyes.net> References: <4B6ED119.2060308@mailinglist.ahhyes.net>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
On Mon, Feb 08, 2010 at 01:41:29AM +1100, alex wrote: > > Hi Guys, > > Today I reformatted a machine (network server) thats run FreeBSD nonstop > for at least the last 3 years and installed linux on it. I have a raid 0 > setup with 2 hard disks in the very same machine. So you had a machine that had run non-stop for 3 years yet you replace the OS. Clever. > > Previously, the maximum I could get across my gigabit enabled network > was 60MB/s (megabytes) per second sustained transfer rate. > > Now that the same machine's raid is formatted with ext4, i am easily > sustaining 86MB/s. > > I cant put it down to the operating system kernel, as to the vast > difference in performance, i suspect it is simply ext4 thats producing > the better results (I have come to this conclusion because no hardware > has changed on that machine, only the OS). > > So can I safely conclude that ext4 is miles ahead of FreeBSD's UFS > performance wise? No you can't. What about the driver for your NIC? It may be nothing to do with the FS. > > I'd like to see some feedback.. > > I am by no means a linux troll. In fact I am far from it. I own many > FreeBSD tshirts. Oh well, if you own FreeBSD T-shirts that settles the matter. > > I see a number of factors putting freebsd behind: > > * The teams stubbornness with compiler/base tools (wont move away from > gcc 4.2.1 because they just cant accept the GPL2) They don't like the license, that's not stubbornness. > * The teams stubbornness with the base system binutils (which cause > mplayer and other multimedia applications not to build, unless a newer > version is installed) Nonsense. > * NO interest in developing new filesystems (forget ZFS), i am talking > about a base filesystem, ext4 blows the socks off UFS. You say, with your in-depth study of the matter and understanding of filesystems. > > Using such an old compiler must have a performance impact on the OS. I > say this because compilers improve over time, they generate better, > tighter, more optimized code. The binutils shipped with freebsd is more > than 5 years old now. A codes age has nothing to do with it's performance. > > It's not just my personal test that has shown that linux is ahead in > numerous areas (performance wise), but the recent phoronix benchmarks > that were released when FreeBSD 8 came out, were pretty damning. Link please. > > I'd like to see what the FreeBSD team has to say on this. > > Alex Despite your FreeBSD T-shirt ownage, your post is a troll. Nobody's interested in your bogus benchmarks & opinions on matters that you are not knowledgeable of. Regards, -- Frank Contact info: http://www.shute.org.uk/misc/contact.html
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?20100207172150.GA59080>