Page 14 of 24 FirstFirst ... 41213141516 ... LastLast
Results 131 to 140 of 238

Thread: Benchmarking ZFS On FreeBSD vs. EXT4 & Btrfs On Linux

  1. #131
    Join Date
    Nov 2009
    Posts
    328

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by kebabbert View Post
    I am only saying that I believe if Oracle is serious about BTRFS, they should have dedicated far more resources internally than one full time paid developer. That is not FUD. It is true. And I do make it clear it is my BELIEF. I do not have proof or evidence that Oracle is abandoning BTRFS. It is just a guess from my side.
    Your belief is wrong, Yan Zheng (Oracle), chris mason (Oracle) Josef Bacik (Red Hat)... seem full time dedicated. Look at the links, stop writing wrong data.


    Your opinion is that "Oracle should have assigned a whole team of developers to BTRFS" but you affirmated this: "But guess what? There is only one single developer on BTRFS. Oracle is not interested in BTRFS, now that they got the best: ZFS" which is totally FUD, you don't know how developing on btrfs is going on.

    On the other hand, linux is developed by many companies, why oracle has to put all the effort on btrfs. They simply continued the project of btrfs. A lot of companies will develop and will benefit.

    Quote Originally Posted by kebabbert View Post
    And I also say that normally, a company does not develop two identical products. And many people agrees that ZFS is superior to BTRFS. So I am asking, why develop an inferior copy, instead of betting on the original ZFS?
    Easy, I have already posted it, there are linux customers that want btrfs.

    Quote Originally Posted by kebabbert View Post
    I make it clear that I guess and I think so. I do not claim to have it as facts. I know there are more than one full time paid developer - but if Oracle really wants to sell products on BTRFS, then Oracle should keep most of the developers in house, so Oracle can tailor BTRFS the way Oracle wants it.

    Again, I do not claim these are facts. I just guess.
    You affirmed things that now you are claiming that were just guesses, like:

    -There is only one single developer on BTRFS. Oracle is not interested in BTRFS, now that they got the best: ZFS

    -Linux is really bad as a Large Enterprise server. It is not because of the bad filesystems, but because of limitations in the Linux kernel

    Now you are beginning t to change, good! i am glad. But please don't say that you were guessing because clearly you were asserting.

  2. #132
    Join Date
    Nov 2008
    Posts
    418

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by kraftman View Post
    http://osdir.com/ml/os.solaris.opens.../msg00020.html

    Solaris feels so bloated and forking processes on it is so slow. Also,some applications consume a lot more CPU time on Solaris.Why is that, Korvar?
    Now, this is a good link, Kraftman. This is credible because Solaris developers are saying things about Solaris. I do accept this link from you. I do not reject this link from you. (You always reject all my links).

    According to this link, one guy can see process forking on Solaris just by looking at the output on the command line. That clearly shows some problem. The Solaris developer tries to debug and find the issue, but there is never any conclusion. The solaris developer just say "we have not focused on doing small things, maybe Linux is faster on this" and then tries to debug the problem. But the guy who reported the bug stops posting in the list. So we dont know what the problem was.

    But I have never claimed that Solaris is faster than Linux on everything. Actually, I wrote that Linux may be faster on small workloads, but when we increase the workload to many cores, then Linux suffers and I gave proof to SAP official benchmarks.

    But that was a good link, Kraftman. Continue like that. Find links from Solaris developers, and I will most probably accept your links.

  3. #133

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by kebabbert View Post
    But I have never claimed that Solaris is faster than Linux on everything. Actually, I wrote that Linux may be faster on small workloads, but when we increase the workload to many cores, then Linux suffers and I gave proof to SAP official benchmarks.
    Those SAP official benchmarks didn't proof a thing. It was two unrelated benchmarks done on different hardware with different database used. Neither proof nor paper describing Linux scale worse then Solaris on such workload.

    But that was a good link, Kraftman. Continue like that. Find links from Solaris developers, and I will most probably accept your links.
    Solaris developers lie and FUD, so I don't believe they will be fair with others and I don't believe they'll saying true things about Solaris. I'm also not interested in proving you anything. Like I said, I can post a link sometimes etc.

  4. #134

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by kebabbert View Post
    No I must not. FUD article on wikipedia does not specify which research journals the papers must be from. You are wrong on this.
    It seems papers backing up your claims doesn't exist. At least, I couldn't find them. Now, could you show them to backup your claims?

    Again (for the fourth(?) time): please specify in what way Solaris is dead? Do you mean it is not sold anymore? I do not know in which way you mean Solaris is dead. How can I show you are wrong, when you dont specify anything? It is like:
    -Kraftman, I think of something (I will not tell you what I think of) but I want you to disprove me. Go ahead.
    If I'm correct, I don't have to specify you a thing. In this link I gave someone claims Solaris is dead. I'm just pasting, why are you asking me?

    Kraftman, you can not just post to any link. That is not proof at all. In that case, you can start a blog of your own, and write what you want, and then post to your blog. That is wrong to do (circular argument).
    I'm aware of this. However, how is this different of showing some Solaris guys or fanboys articles? Or public relations talk? Those are usually even worse then some blog post. Afaik you even gave a link to Bonwick's blog and he FUDs.

  5. #135
    Join Date
    Nov 2008
    Posts
    418

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Jimbo View Post
    Your belief is wrong, Yan Zheng (Oracle), chris mason (Oracle) Josef Bacik (Red Hat)... seem full time dedicated. Look at the links, stop writing wrong data.
    Of course I will stop writing wrong things, if I am not correct. I dont want to lie. You have posted some links, could you please point out where it says that those developers are full time paid by Oracle? Yes, there are developers active with BTRFS - I explained that earlier.

    But I read in a link I got here, where Chris Mason said in an interview, something like: he "was the only full time paid developer at Oracle". I do not lie about this. He also said there are part time developers on BTRFS. But he explicitly said he was the only full time paid developer. I do not make this up, nor lie about this.

    If you can show that there are several full time paid developers at Oracle, or an Oracle team, I will stop say that there is only one full time Oracle developer. Of course. I am not a liar or FUDer.


    Your opinion is that "Oracle should have assigned a whole team of developers to BTRFS" but you affirmated this: "But guess what? There is only one single developer on BTRFS. Oracle is not interested in BTRFS, now that they got the best: ZFS" which is totally FUD, you don't know how developing on btrfs is going on.
    I read in an interview from Chris Mason where he said he is the only full time paid developer - this is not FUD nor lie.

    Oracle is not interested in BTRFS: there are several people thinks like this, not only me. At least one analyst said that. I write what I read: "from a business perspective, it is bad to sell two identical products" - said the analyst. This is also not FUD.


    Easy, I have already posted it, there are linux customers that want btrfs.
    I agree on this. But it would be easy for Oracle to say "ZFS is ready now, buy it now"


    You affirmed things that now you are claiming that were just guesses, like:

    -There is only one single developer on BTRFS.
    This is not a guess. I read this, from the BTRFS main architect.


    Oracle is not interested in BTRFS, now that they got the best: ZFS
    This is a guess. I have not read any Oracle executive saying this. But I read an analyst saying this. But the analyst does not know, he is also guessing. So, yes, this is a guess. When I guess, I always write something like "in my opinion" or "in my point of view" or "I believe" etc


    -Linux is really bad as a Large Enterprise server. It is not because of the bad filesystems, but because of limitations in the Linux kernel
    This is not a guess. A Senior Storage expert says this. As other experts also says.


    Now you are beginning t to change, good! i am glad. But please don't say that you were guessing because clearly you were asserting
    Some things I was guessing. Other things I was asserting. And I do change about "only one full time devleoper at Oracle" if you can prove me wrong. The other things I have not changed. If you prove me wrong on other things, then I stop assert those things too, of course.

    If you can prove me wrong on anything, I stop say so. At once. For instance, I do not say anymore that Linux has the graphics in the kernel, because someone posted links that disproved that. (But I read an Linux article where they said that Linux will have the graphic inside the Kernel, so I dont make that up or lie. I read that). If I see someone say that Linux kernel has graphics, then I correct them now: "No, Linux only has some parts in the kernel."

  6. #136
    Join Date
    Nov 2008
    Posts
    418

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by kraftman View Post
    Those SAP official benchmarks didn't proof a thing. It was two unrelated benchmarks done on different hardware with different database used. Neither proof nor paper describing Linux scale worse then Solaris on such workload.
    Linux used faster hardware, faster CPU and faster RAM, and still lost that SAP benchmark. That is testament to Linux had low cpu utilization: 87%. Whereas Solaris had 99% cpu utilization. That is the reason won, on slower hardware.

    You are contradicting yourself. You accept benchmarks like FreeBSD vs Linux vs OpenSolaris without problem. Even though they do not use same software or gcc version: one of them compiles to 64bit, the other compiles to 32 bit. One uses gcc v3.xx and the other uses gcc v4.xx. And you think those benhcmarks are fair because Linux wins. You even posted a benchmark where one Linux fanboy compared one old 800 MHz sparc Solaris vs a intel dual core 2.4GHz Linux and you think that is a good benchmark because Linux won.

    You accept benchmarks on different hardware and different software when Linux win, and reject all benchmarks when Linux loose.

    You sir, you are a humbug and a liar.


    Quote Originally Posted by kraftman View Post
    Solaris developers lie and FUD, so I don't believe they will be fair with others and I don't believe they'll saying true things about Solaris. I'm also not interested in proving you anything. Like I said, I can post a link sometimes etc.
    I have posted several links to non-Solaris developers. Even Linux developers. But you reject even those links, even to Linus T.

    If a link is negative for Linux you reject it, it does not matter if it is Linus T that says so. If a link is good for Linux you immediately accept it. It does not matter if it is a Linux fanboy doing the worst and biased comparison in history - "it is a good and fair link"

    Have I told you are a Humbug and FUDer? You earlier confessed you do FUD.



    Quote Originally Posted by kraftman View Post
    It seems papers backing up your claims doesn't exist. At least, I couldn't find them. Now, could you show them to backup your claims?
    Dont play silly. Ive posted lots of research papers. You saw them.


    If I'm correct, I don't have to specify you a thing. In this link I gave someone claims Solaris is dead. I'm just pasting, why are you asking me?
    You are not correct. If you want me to show you something, then you must specify what you want me to show. How can I otherwise defend Solaris? Would like if government did say:
    -Kraftman, you are accused of a horrible crime. We will not tell you which crime. Do you confess? We will not specify.


    I'm aware of this. However, how is this different of showing some Solaris guys or fanboys articles? Or public relations talk? Those are usually even worse then some blog post. Afaik you even gave a link to Bonwick's blog and he FUDs.
    Regarding Bonwick, there are many experts that thinks he is correct. Bonwick (the ZFS main architect) has written negative things about Linux, but that is not FUD. That is relevant criticizm. There are lots of experts agreeing with Bonwick on his Linux criticism. Bonwick is not making things up nor lie out of nothing - he has most probably talked to other experts and Enterprise sysadmins.

    Regarding my links, do you consider my links to Linus T, Andrew Morton, etc - are FUD and lies? Do you think I have created my own web site and made up those interviews? Do you think I lie and FUD about those interviews?

  7. #137
    Join Date
    Nov 2009
    Posts
    328

    Default

    Your exactly words have been:

    In my opinion, if Oracle really wants to bet on BTRFS, Oracle should have assigned a whole team of developers to BTRFS. But guess what? There is only one single developer on BTRFS. Oracle is not interested in BTRFS, now that they got the best: ZFS. Come on, do you really expect BTRFS is a serious attempt by Oracle? There is only ONE full time developer! Jesus. Who are you trying to fool?
    Which is totally fud, follow the links I posted, you could see that btrfs is activelly developed by a more than 1 dev, at least 2 or more from oracle, red hat, ibm...

    If you now want to rephrase yourself telling me that you pointed 1 full time payed dev by oracle go ahead, do whatever you want. But the reality is that you have pointed bad information, and someone really you and trusting you (it's hard to believe that someone does) can learn wrong data.

  8. #138
    Join Date
    Nov 2009
    Posts
    328

    Default

    sorry , 1min.

    And if someone is reading and trusting you (it's hard to believe that someone does) then he/she could learn wrong data.

  9. #139
    Join Date
    Nov 2009
    Posts
    328

    Default

    This is not a guess. A Senior Storage expert says this. As other experts also says.
    A 2008 opinion, even on 2008 otherdevs had said that this guy was worng, i posted you data, but obviously you have pointed that

    http://lxer.com/module/newswire/lf/view/103802/

    is lying.

  10. #140
    Join Date
    Nov 2008
    Posts
    418

    Default

    Kebabbert wrote:
    "In my opinion, if Oracle really wants to bet on BTRFS, Oracle should have assigned a whole team of developers to BTRFS. But guess what? There is only one single developer on BTRFS. "

    Quote Originally Posted by Jimbo View Post
    Which is totally fud, follow the links I posted, you could see that btrfs is activelly developed by a more than 1 dev, at least 2 or more from oracle, red hat, ibm...
    How is that FUD? I read in the interview by the BTRFS main architect, he said he was the only full time paid developer at Oracle. That is not "a team". So, where do I FUD? Do you mean Chris Mason is not to be trusted in the interviews?


    Quote Originally Posted by Jimbo View Post
    If you now want to rephrase yourself telling me that you pointed 1 full time payed dev by oracle go ahead, do whatever you want. But the reality is that you have pointed bad information, and someone really you and trusting you (it's hard to believe that someone does) can learn wrong data.
    As I told you: I post information that I have read, from credible sources. This piece of information "one full time paid developer at Oracle on BTRFS" is from Chris Mason himself. Do you think he is not credible? Should I not trust him? Sorry I do not agree with your viewpoint in that case, I deem him credible. He said so, it is not FUD nor "bad information"

    If you can prove there is a whole team of full time paid developers at Oracle, then you have disproved me and showed me wrong. If you can not prove there is a full time team, then maybe it is correct that only Chris Mason is full time paid developer at Oracle? Especially as he says so, himself. I think he knows more on who is working on BTRFS, than you?

Posting Permissions

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