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.
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...
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.
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.
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.
Last edited by deanjo; 05-14-2009 at 10:10 PM.
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.
Ok.Also HFS+ does not predate NTFS, NTFS debuted in 1993, HFS+ didn't debut until 1998.
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.As far as overhead goes there is very little overhead at all for journalling.
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.
I wasn't. HFS+ has been around since MacOS 8.1.Not even appreciablely measured. Don't confuse HFS+ with HFS which is an entirely different filesystem.
I just was mistaken since NTFS is such a obviously superior FS that I assumed it was introduced after HFS+ was.
No.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").
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.
Ya... a server system with a reliable, UPS-backed. power supply is not a situation were you would tend to run into problems.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.
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.