On Thu, Dec 15, 2011 at 9:58 AM, O. Hartmann <ohart...@zedat.fu-berlin.de> wrote: > Am 12/15/11 14:51, schrieb Daniel Kalchev: >> >> On Dec 15, 2011, at 3:25 PM, Stefan Esser wrote: >> >>> Am 15.12.2011 11:10, schrieb Michael Larabel: >>>> No, the same hardware was used for each OS. >>>> >>>> In terms of the software, the stock software stack for each OS was used. >>> >>> Just curious: Why did you choose ZFS on FreeBSD, while UFS2 (with >>> journaling enabled) should be an obvious choice since it is more similar >>> in concept to ext4 and since that is what most FreeBSD users will use >>> with FreeBSD? >> >> >> Or perhaps, since it is "server" Linux distribution, use ZFS on Linux as >> well. With identical tuning on both Linux and FreeBSD. Having the same FS >> used by both OS will help make the comparison more sensible for FS I/O. >> >> Daniel_______________________________________________ > > Since ZFS in Linux can only be achieved via FUSE (ad far as I know), it > is legitimate to compare ZFS and ext4. It would be much more competetive > to compare Linux BTRFS and FreeBSD ZFS.
There is a separate kernel module for ZFS that can be installed, giving you proper kernel-level support for ZFS on Linux. -- Freddie Cash fjwc...@gmail.com _______________________________________________ freebsd-performance@freebsd.org mailing list http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-performance To unsubscribe, send any mail to "freebsd-performance-unsubscr...@freebsd.org"
