Page 1 of 2 12 LastLast
Results 1 to 10 of 14

Thread: Running ZFS With CAM-based ATA On FreeBSD 8.1

  1. #1
    Join Date
    Jan 2007
    Posts
    15,134

    Default Running ZFS With CAM-based ATA On FreeBSD 8.1

    Phoronix: Running ZFS With CAM-based ATA On FreeBSD 8.1

    As was mentioned in last Friday's article, Which Is Faster: Debian Linux or FreeBSD, tests of FreeBSD atop the ZFS file-system (rather than UFS2+S) are currently underway and those results are expected to be published in full later this week as the ZFS disk performance is compared directly to UFS2+S, UFS2+J, and also Ubuntu Linux with the EXT4 and Btrfs file-systems. Today though we have a few ZFS performance numbers to share as we look at the performance of the new CAM-ATA sub-system on FreeBSD.

    http://www.phoronix.com/vr.php?view=15148

  2. #2
    Join Date
    Jul 2010
    Posts
    2

    Default

    Very interesting, I wonder what the devs have to say about the results.

  3. #3
    Join Date
    Jul 2008
    Posts
    1,727

    Default

    probably nothing? Remember, freebse devs told everyone and the world that softupdates were better than journaling and 'free'. Without performance impact. Until other showed them:
    no.

    did they retract? did they do something about it? No, just silence.

  4. #4
    Join Date
    May 2009
    Posts
    14

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by energyman View Post
    probably nothing? Remember, freebse devs told everyone and the world that softupdates were better than journaling and 'free'. Without performance impact. Until other showed them:
    no.
    When has that been shown? Never seen a benchmark between UFS with softupdates and UFS with journalling.

  5. #5
    Join Date
    Jul 2008
    Posts
    1,727

    Default

    there have been tests comparing ufs with softupdates and without. Since there is no journaling for ufs the rest of your posting aswers yourself.

  6. #6
    Join Date
    Oct 2009
    Posts
    101

    Default

    Here is the only benchmarking test between UFS journaling and softupdates that I could find quickly. Maybe this is something Phoronix should test? After all, most popular Linux filesystems use journaling, so it would be good to know how well it stands up against softupdates.

  7. #7
    Join Date
    Jul 2008
    Posts
    1,727

  8. #8
    Join Date
    May 2009
    Posts
    14

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by energyman View Post
    Since there is no journaling for ufs
    There is. It's called gjournal.

  9. #9
    Join Date
    Jul 2008
    Posts
    1,727

    Default

    oh sorry. And when was it introduced?

  10. #10

    Default

    A request to the Author:

    I just wanted to point out a difference between GNU/Linux and FreeBSD systems. Whereas Linux refers to just the kernel, FreeBSD refers to a fully functional Operating System of which kernel is just a small component. The Desktop Environment (Gnome, KDE, ... ), Xorg, even bash shell are third party applications that can be either installed as binaries or compiled from source with the excellent Ports infrastructure. Therefore, it would be great if the following sentence is corrected to:

    --
    The software stack being tested consists of the FreeBSD 8.1-RELEASE x86_64 base system with KDE 4.4.45, X.Org Server 1.7.5, and GCC 4.2.1.
    --

    Please note the change: word "kernel" is replaced with "base system with".

    Please keep up the good work!

Posting Permissions

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