Page 2 of 3 FirstFirst 123 LastLast
Results 11 to 20 of 28

Thread: OpenSolaris vs. Linux Kernel Benchmarks

  1. #11

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Garp View Post
    What happened to the graphs on half the results? Seem to be missing important data, e.g. the SQLite one only has figure for the Solaris test, Ubuntu ones are all empty!

    You're missing data on:

    Threaded Data 64Mb Write - 4 Threads : Ubuntu amd64, 2.6.30
    SQLite : All the Ubuntu ones.
    PostgreSQL: Solaris
    It's not "missing" it's just that the bars there are too small proportionally to fit the text that shows what the exact value was. It's all charted correctly though.

  2. #12

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by parapup View Post
    better behavior under insane load, unreasonable expectations of backward compatibility etc. - mostly the type of things which you don't want to deal with.
    Those are very debatable things

  3. #13
    Join Date
    Oct 2008
    Posts
    64

    Default

    Is it normal that Phoronix always uses a non-stable development version of their benchmark suite for each test? I mean every time i read a test on this site, not the actual stable version of the suite is used, it is always the development version.

  4. #14

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by glasen View Post
    Is it normal that Phoronix always uses a non-stable development version of their benchmark suite for each test? I mean every time i read a test on this site, not the actual stable version of the suite is used, it is always the development version.
    Yes, almost always. Whether you're running a development or stable version of the Phoronix Test Suite, as long as the test profile version is the same you should pretty much experience the same results. The pts-core really doesn't impact the actual testing process so much. And the development version is "stable" by most peoples definition, it's just a matter of going through changes at the present time. As the lead developer of the Phoronix Test Suite and also the one that facilitates 99% of the tests at Phoronix.com, it works out quite well and I wouldn't use a development version of PTS if I wasn't certain it could be counted on.

  5. #15
    Join Date
    Sep 2006
    Posts
    714

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by parapup View Post
    So we are saying Mac OS X > Linux > Solaris here? If you ask me that sounds weird. I would prefer running Solaris in a hostile production environment and would venture into running Linux only after exercising caution but I would never want to run OSX even on moderately busy production server no matter what.

    You know of course that VFAT can perform very very very well in file system benchmarks, right?

    It's also true that efforts to protect and manage data efficiently on file systems have significant overhead....

    Think about that and then it's no longer a mystery why OS X seems to be faster then Linux or Solaris.

    ========

    I really really dislike HFS+ file system.

    You know that HFS+ isn't even POSIX compliant? It doesn't even use the same symantics for locating data...

    Unix:
    /path/to/directory/filename.txt

    HFS+
    volumename:to:directory:filename.txt

    Or something like that. They use the BSD-VFS layer in the BSD-half of the XNU hybrid kernel to make it look and act like a POSIX-ish file system.

    HFS+ is also NOT a journaling file system! It's a file system much more like VFAT.. in fact it is from the same generation of file systems. HFS+ pre-dates NTFS, Ext3, and all that stuff. The journaling features are another VFS add-on.. and they actually have quite a bit more overhead then actually having journaling in the file system.

    This is true from the OS X 10.2-10.3 days (which after that I stopped caring about OS X), they may have fixed it... but that isn't likely. It's not a fun file system to deal with...

    ===============


    Also it's worth noting that ZFS is generally pretty slow. It's not a fast FS even though it certainly is a very capable and very secure file system.

    Everything has a trade off.

    Also microbenchmarks are good at comparing Linux vs Linux.. or OS X vs OS X, etc etc.. but they are limited when comparing OS vs Different OS.

  6. #16
    Join Date
    Apr 2009
    Posts
    8

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by drag View Post
    I really really dislike HFS+ file system.

    You know that HFS+ isn't even POSIX compliant? It doesn't even use the same symantics for locating data...
    [snip]
    Or something like that. They use the BSD-VFS layer in the BSD-half of the XNU hybrid kernel to make it look and act like a POSIX-ish file system.

    HFS+ is also NOT a journaling file system! It's a file system much more like VFAT.. in fact it is from the same generation of file systems. HFS+ pre-dates NTFS, Ext3, and all that stuff. The journaling features are another VFS add-on.. and they actually have quite a bit more overhead then actually having journaling in the file system.

    This is true from the OS X 10.2-10.3 days (which after that I stopped caring about OS X), they may have fixed it... but that isn't likely. It's not a fun file system to deal with...
    For every time I had a file system related issue on OSX/HFS+ I wish I had a nickel ! It is not only an ancient, non POSIX compliant file system it also is the most unreliable FS used on modern OSes. Both NTFS and ext3 are far more reliable. And no doubt ZFS takes it even further.

    I am not a big fan of OSX when it comes to Operating System Design - I hate several things - HFS+ is one (why do I need permissions database repair in 2009), Running 32-bit kernel on 64-bit processor while supporting 64-bit binaries (I heard this is getting addressed in next release), threading fiasco (funnels) to name a few. Just look at how many months they are taking to integrate ZFS - not even RO support is mainstream yet - that speaks volumes about design and scalability.

    Given that I was very surprised to see OSX winning benchmarks against Linux and Solaris - but as you implied and I hinted in the earlier post, the benchmarks in question certainly do not seem to be representative of real-world performance.

  7. #17
    Join Date
    May 2007
    Location
    Third Rock from the Sun
    Posts
    6,587

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by drag View Post
    I really really dislike HFS+ file system.

    You know that HFS+ isn't even POSIX compliant? It doesn't even use the same symantics for locating data...

    Unix:
    /path/to/directory/filename.txt

    HFS+
    volumename:to:directory:filename.txt

    Or something like that. They use the BSD-VFS layer in the BSD-half of the XNU hybrid kernel to make it look and act like a POSIX-ish file system.

    HFS+ is also NOT a journaling file system! It's a file system much more like VFAT.. in fact it is from the same generation of file systems. HFS+ pre-dates NTFS, Ext3, and all that stuff. The journaling features are another VFS add-on.. and they actually have quite a bit more overhead then actually having journaling in the file system.

    This is true from the OS X 10.2-10.3 days (which after that I stopped caring about OS X), they may have fixed it... but that isn't likely. It's not a fun file system to deal with...
    Did you know that there have been many changes since you last looked at OS X? Did you know that it is 100% posix compliant and certified as of 10.5?

    Also HFS+ does not predate NTFS, NTFS debuted in 1993, HFS+ didn't debut until 1998. As far as overhead goes there is very little overhead at all for journalling. Not even appreciablely measured. Don't confuse HFS+ with HFS which is an entirely different filesystem. Some people seem to think that HFS+ is just HFS with more capabilites added to it because they can be read by HFS only machines which would be completely wrong. That is done through a wrapper found on HFS+ to allow HFS capable machines to read them instead of going "huh the disk is empty".

    You can as well very easily use the same syntax for paths as well. I really have no idea where you got that. (Actually I do, that would be from HFS on "classic" systems").

    As far as reliabilty goes I ran OS X servers for quite a few years with an average traffic rate of 40TB / month per server, not once has data been corrupted or lost spanning years.

    Last edited by deanjo; 05-14-2009 at 09:21 PM.

  8. #18
    Join Date
    Apr 2009
    Posts
    8

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by deanjo View Post
    Did you know that there have been many changes since you last looked at OS X? Did you know that it is 100% posix compliant and certified as of 10.5?
    Isn't there a difference between UNIX 03 compliance and POSIX compliance?

  9. #19
    Join Date
    May 2007
    Location
    Third Rock from the Sun
    Posts
    6,587

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by parapup View Post
    Isn't there a difference between UNIX 03 compliance and POSIX compliance?
    Same thing.

    IEEE Std 1003.1 aka ISO/IEC 9945

    http://www.unix.org/version3/
    "Read/Download IEEE Std 1003.1, 2004 Edition, Single UNIX Specification Version 3"

    http://posixcertified.ieee.org/
    Last edited by deanjo; 05-14-2009 at 10:10 PM.

  10. #20
    Join Date
    Sep 2006
    Posts
    714

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by deanjo View Post
    Did you know that there have been many changes since you last looked at OS X? Did you know that it is 100% posix compliant and certified as of 10.5?
    So?

    I was talking about the File system and not the operating system.

    This is why OS X supplied UFS. UFS is indeed a POSIX file system and is provided for compatibility reasons.

    The reason why HFS+ is used by default is becuase the GUI, the non-UNIX stuff, needs to have it's resource forks for them to work properly and you'd run into problems on UFS.


    Also HFS+ does not predate NTFS, NTFS debuted in 1993, HFS+ didn't debut until 1998.
    Ok.

    As far as overhead goes there is very little overhead at all for journalling.
    Enabling journalling on a older PowerMAC is a good way to have a massive drop in performance. They could probably of optimized it quite a bit since it was originally introduced with the 10.2.2 OS (which was not enabled by default), but HFS+ is still relying on a VFS layer for it's journalling features and is not something that is built into the actual FS.


    Beleive me. I know this because I was trying to deal with managing ~90 Mac OS X workstations when that was new and was getting really tired of having to rescue their file systems and repair permissions.


    Not even appreciablely measured. Don't confuse HFS+ with HFS which is an entirely different filesystem.
    I wasn't. HFS+ has been around since MacOS 8.1.

    I just was mistaken since NTFS is such a obviously superior FS that I assumed it was introduced after HFS+ was.



    You can as well very easily use the same syntax for paths as well. I really have no idea where you got that. (Actually I do, that would be from HFS on "classic" systems").
    No.

    HFS+ uses : as a path deliminator and all paths must be full paths.

    Like I said before the BSD-VFS layer is used to trick the Unix half of the operating system into thinking it's on a POSIX-like file system.

    I ran into these issues quite often when I was trying to combine my Unix scripting skills with Apple's GUI stuff to automate things for students. If you think that openning up a terminal gives you access to what is happenning 'underneath' that pretty GUI that OS X uses... your going to be dissappointed.


    As far as reliabilty goes I ran OS X servers for quite a few years with an average traffic rate of 40TB / month per server, not once has data been corrupted or lost spanning years.
    Ya... a server system with a reliable, UPS-backed. power supply is not a situation were you would tend to run into problems.

    I helped administrate the Macs used in the electronic imaging and graphics classrooms of 2 college campuses. Total number of Macs were about 200+. Which is going to be about the largest concentration of Macs that your likely to see anywere around were I live.

    At the time they ranged from beige tower G3s to the dual proccessor G5 machines. The most common being the PowerMac G4s.

    They are a lot funner to work with then the Windows workstations that were used for 3D graphics.. but to say that I was less then impressed by the robustness of the OS.

    The fact that Apple is still using HFS+ means that not really that much has changed.

    If Apple was to move to ZFS (as the default for everything) then that would be very very very good move and very impressive.

    However I am convinced that Apple doesn't give a flying fart about the server market or anything to do with the 'enterprise' weither it was in desktops or server deployments. Home users couldn't give a shit less about the file system and there really isn't any good reason for them to do so.. just as long as they use Time Machine with external media effectively, which is exactly why Apple can get away with having a lousy file system.
    Last edited by drag; 05-15-2009 at 05:41 AM.

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •