Paul:
EXT3 - ~3000 tps
EXT4 - ~3800 tps
XFS - ~ 1800 tps
ZFS - 75000 tps
The result for FFS w/softdeps seems to have been lost in the mail. :-(
Mark:
They certainly have earned the title Moronix either way.
For me, getting a debugging flag wrong (assuming they did, there seems
to be some q
On Fri, 07 Jan 2011 10:19:05 -0600
"Mark Felder" wrote:
> On Fri, 07 Jan 2011 09:19:30 -0600, Bruce Cran
> wrote:
>
> > People seem to forget that debugging is turned off before the RC
> > builds are done, which is what Phoronix tested (8.0 RC1).
>
> The GENERIC kernel has DEBUG=-g enabled; pe
On Fri, 07 Jan 2011 10:19:05 -0600
"Mark Felder" wrote:
> On Fri, 07 Jan 2011 09:19:30 -0600, Bruce Cran
> wrote:
>
> > People seem to forget that debugging is turned off before the RC
> > builds are done, which is what Phoronix tested (8.0 RC1).
>
> The GENERIC kernel has DEBUG=-g enabled; pe
On Fri, 07 Jan 2011 09:19:30 -0600, Bruce Cran wrote:
People seem to forget that debugging is turned off before the RC builds
are done, which is what Phoronix tested (8.0 RC1).
The GENERIC kernel has DEBUG=-g enabled; perhaps this is what he is
referring to?
They certainly have earned the
Hi,
Having in mind that a SAS enterprise disk normally can handle 150-180IOPS, this
benchmark is testing something else ;)
Well there is a one thing which is clear from almost every Phoronix benchmark -
Linux is heavily optimized ... for unpacking the linux kernel :)
On Jan 7, 2011, at 4:12 PM,
Kevin,
Sadly, true. They are a heavy Ubuntu supporting shop. I always laugh at their
benchmarks. However, I may try their benches on FreeBSD against different
tuning parameters on *BSDs, just to see where things are and see if there's any
improvement or degradation depending on various setti
On Fri, 7 Jan 2011 15:39:00 +0100
"Christopher J. Ruwe" wrote:
> Some time ago Phoronix compared a FreeBSD with kernel debugging turned
> on to an Ubuntu to show that FreeBSD is slow and Linuxes way faster.
> Since then I have privately dubbed that site Moronix.
People seem to forget that debugg
On Fri, 7 Jan 2011 06:12:38 -0800 (PST)
Paul Pathiakis wrote:
> This is almost laughable. I'd like to know what parameters they were
> tuning.
Some time ago Phoronix compared a FreeBSD with kernel debugging turned
on to an Ubuntu to show that FreeBSD is slow and Linuxes way faster.
Since then
On 7 January 2011 09:12, Paul Pathiakis wrote:
> This is almost laughable. I'd like to know what parameters they were tuning.
> I
> used FreeBSD with ZFS to make a point to people using Debian on EXT3, EXT4,
> XFS
> just two years ago. They were interested in total throughput and TPS. Well,
This is almost laughable. I'd like to know what parameters they were tuning.
I
used FreeBSD with ZFS to make a point to people using Debian on EXT3, EXT4, XFS
just two years ago. They were interested in total throughput and TPS. Well, I
used the SAME MACHINE and rebuilt it from scratch with
Another filesystem benchmark from Phoronix. This time comparing HAMMER,
UFS, ZFS, EXT3, EXT4 and Btrfs on DragonFly BSD, PC-BSD and Ubuntu.
http://www.phoronix.com/scan.php?page=article&item=dragonfly_hammer
I think it is almost useless test if systems were crippled to UP,
because of bad SMP p
11 matches
Mail list logo
