Page 15 of 24 FirstFirst ... 51314151617 ... LastLast
Results 141 to 150 of 238

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

  1. #141
    Join Date
    Nov 2009
    Posts
    328

    Default

    more easy for intellects like you

    "There is only one single developer on BTRFS"

  2. #142
    Join Date
    Nov 2008
    Posts
    418

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Jimbo View Post
    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.
    You posted this link earlier, and I answered to your post. Did you not read my answer on this? Here is my answer on your link:
    http://phoronix.com/forums/showpost....1&postcount=44

  3. #143
    Join Date
    Nov 2008
    Posts
    418

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Jimbo View Post
    more easy for intellects like you

    "There is only one single developer on BTRFS"
    I am refering to my earlier post on this; there is only one full time paid developer at Oracle.

    After writing that sentence once, I refer to that sentence again, but only write down parts of the whole sentence. Are you playing dumb?

    If you talk about Linux horizontal scalability, you sometimes only write "linux scalability" and you mean "Linux horizontal scalability" - but you do not write every single word. Everyone does that. It gets a pain to write down every single word in a long sentence, such as "one full time paid developer at Oracle working on BTRFS" - dont you think?

  4. #144
    Join Date
    Nov 2009
    Posts
    328

    Default

    You pointed that there was 1 dev, wanting to look it as it was an under development project. Rephrase whatever you like.

    You arguments have nosense on a true open source project like btrfs. How many full time kernel dev has linux foundation and are payed by linux fundation?

  5. #145
    Join Date
    Nov 2008
    Posts
    418

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Jimbo View Post
    You pointed that there was 1 dev, wanting to look it as it was an under development project.
    Do you mean BTRFS is not under development? I must have missed that. When did Oracle release v1.0? Do you have links, or are you making this up?


    Quote Originally Posted by Jimbo View Post
    Rephrase whatever you like.
    I was quoting BTRFS main architect who said in an interview, he was the only one full time developer at Oracle. I am not making that up. If you think I lie about this, I am not. Again, I only write here what other, more credible people say. For instance, Linus T, Andrew Morton, SAP official benchmarks, BTRFS main architect, researchers, etc.


    Quote Originally Posted by Jimbo View Post
    You arguments have nosense on a true open source project like btrfs. How many full time kernel dev has linux foundation and are payed by linux fundation?
    I am not questioning if there are Linux developers. Why do you imply I question that?

    I was only quoting BTRFS main developer who said he was the only full time developer at Oracle - if you think this is a lie and FUD - fine for you. But according to wikipedia, it is not FUD nor lies. And I also said that in my view point, if Oracle is really serious with selling a product, Oracle should dedicate a whole team, not a single developer (according to Chris Mason). How can you draw the conclusion I do FUD?!?!?! I do not FUD. If you continue to accuse me of FUDing, then it is you that FUDs and lies about me. Stop say I FUD, every assertion I did was true.

    (Guesses and opinions are not FUD. False assertions are FUD. I never did false assertions. I only wrote opinions and guesses. Again: opinions are never wrong or FUD, but facts and assertions can be wrong or FUD).

  6. #146
    Join Date
    Nov 2009
    Posts
    328

    Default

    No, no, no you lie, you are under heavy fudding masturbation! you don't even know what you have written.

    (opinion)In my opinion, if Oracle really wants to bet on BTRFS, Oracle should have assigned a whole team of developers to BTRFS (end opinion).

    (assertion, fud begins) 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? (end assertion, fud ends)



    There is no mention to Chris Mason interview, there is a clear intention to undervalue btrfs development. There is no earlier message speaking about one full time developer and lot of other devs, there is no earlier message about Chris Mason interview. You obviously have no idea how btrfs development is going. So You fud.

    Fud is not about lying intentionally, is more like spreading false information because of ignorance or disrespect about something.

  7. #147
    Join Date
    Feb 2008
    Posts
    34

    Default

    "There is only one full time paid developer" So?

  8. #148

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by doubledr View Post
    "There is only one full time paid developer" So?
    Some proof? Afaik there are many more.

  9. #149

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by kebabbert View Post
    Because you have not read this thread from the beginning, I post this article again. Here is a link to a research paper about how XFS, JFS, ReiserFS, etc does not protect your data - which is what I have claimed earler.
    http://www.zdnet.com/blog/storage/ho...ta-at-risk/169
    So, when I post to blog it's wrong, but when Kebabbert posts to blogs it's good?

    [QUOTE]I have also posted several research papers which backs up my claim about ZFS giving good protection, whereas common filesystems (including Raid-5 and raid-6) do not offer good data protection.

    Do you want me to repost those research papers for you?[QUOTE]

    I'd love to you repost them. Btw. I want to see proofs there backing all you have claimed before.


    Nevermind Kraftman, claiming I do not post to research papers., He just lies about me
    FUD. I'm claiming your not posting to papers which backups your claims.

  10. #150

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by kebabbert View Post
    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.
    Solaris run different database, Oracle database. Afaik Solaris machine had twice amount of RAM more then Linux machine. Solaris server was also much more expensive then Linux server. It's possible, like it was said before Solaris server was much more expensive, because somebody cared to optimize this server for maximum CPU utilization. It's not a proof it scales better then Linux

    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.
    Why are you lying? I don't think such comparisons are fair and I don't treat them as proofs. Stop lying, please.

    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.
    Yes, and you even posted two SAP unrelated papers, how is it different?

    You accept benchmarks on different hardware and different software when Linux win, and reject all benchmarks when Linux loose.
    You want me to accept benchmarks done on a different hardware. I consider it's fair benchmarking defaults like Phoronix does and if I claim Linux is faster it's not, because of Phoronix benchmarks, but because I believe so and because I saw things which suggest this.

    You sir, you are a humbug and a liar.
    It's you who's lying.

    I have posted several links to non-Solaris developers. Even Linux developers. But you reject even those links, even to Linus T.
    I don't consider those were proofs or papers, those were personal opinions which neither proof nor show Linux code is worse then Solaris.

    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.
    Papers, please. Linux dev said Bonwick is a FUDer and a lier. You're lying now saying Bonwick is not making things up nor lie.

Posting Permissions

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