Date: Fri, 7 Jan 2011 09:40:15 -0500 From: Kevin Wilcox <kevin.wilcox@gmail.com> To: freebsd-performance@freebsd.org Subject: Re: Phoronix comparision of HAMMER, UFS, ZFS, EXT3, EXT4, Btrfs Message-ID: <AANLkTi==SXEdE7pNc=sNGnGhGV1x-b0sAjfEryzzfL1i@mail.gmail.com> In-Reply-To: <448737.83863.qm@web110508.mail.gq1.yahoo.com> References: <4D26FBD3.20307@quip.cz> <448737.83863.qm@web110508.mail.gq1.yahoo.com>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
On 7 January 2011 09:12, Paul Pathiakis <pathiaki2@yahoo.com> wrote: > This is almost laughable. =C2=A0I'd like to know what parameters they wer= e tuning. =C2=A0I > used FreeBSD with ZFS to make a point to people using Debian on EXT3, EXT= 4, XFS > just two years ago. =C2=A0They were interested in total throughput and TP= S. =C2=A0Well, I > used the SAME MACHINE and rebuilt it from scratch with the same parameter= s > except the filesystems and the last time I changed the OS to FreeBSD with= ZFS. Paul - Phoronix has a history of "performance benchmarks" that skew *heavily* towards Linux and away from the BSDs, which is to say their "benchmarks" are hardly indicative of Real Life. I know I'm in for a laugh any time I see someone reference one of their "performance tests" regarding Linux/BSD. Sadly, a lot of folks will look at that and say, "See? An independent, non-biased review..." kmw
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?AANLkTi==SXEdE7pNc=sNGnGhGV1x-b0sAjfEryzzfL1i>