Le 02/12/2008 à 22:58:28+0100, Wojciech Puchar a écrit
To come back to FreeBSD, I'm using FreeBSD since 10 years, UFS is very
slow, and when UFS2 is release I'm very happy to switch to UFS2.
simply turn on softupdates and turn off atime
Yes I known that.
But event that UFS2 UFS1
What about DragonFlyBSD's new HAMMER FS? I hear it has similar capabilities
as ZFS without the overhead. Though, strangely, I haven't really heard
anyone discuss it even though it was released some months ago.
it's maybe pre-pre-prerelease.
it's not finished yet.
2008/12/2 Nathan Lay [EMAIL PROTECTED]:
What about DragonFlyBSD's new HAMMER FS? I hear it has similar capabilities
as ZFS without the overhead. Though, strangely, I haven't really heard
anyone discuss it even though it was released some months ago.
Well, that's because it doesn't :)
Wojciech Puchar([EMAIL PROTECTED])@2008.12.02 11:09:53 +0100:
What about DragonFlyBSD's new HAMMER FS? I hear it has similar capabilities
as ZFS without the overhead. Though, strangely, I haven't really heard
anyone discuss it even though it was released some months ago.
it's maybe
It's already usable on DragonFly. DragonFLY itself is stable, but only
supports one CPUIt probably will never be ported to FreeBSD due to
API differences.
time to wait and see if they will really make dragonfly faster than
FreeBSD (it's their goal)...
Wojciech Puchar wrote:
It's already usable on DragonFly. DragonFLY itself is stable, but only
supports one CPUIt probably will never be ported to FreeBSD due to
API differences.
time to wait and see if they will really make dragonfly faster than
FreeBSD (it's their goal)...
Wojciech Puchar wrote:
What about DragonFlyBSD's new HAMMER FS? I hear it has similar
capabilities
as ZFS without the overhead. Though, strangely, I haven't really heard
anyone discuss it even though it was released some months ago.
it's maybe pre-pre-prerelease.
it's not finished
I don't think HAMMER intends to implement a significant portion of ZFS's
it intends to implement what's needed.
anyway - lets wait when it will be really finished
___
freebsd-questions@freebsd.org mailing list
time to wait and see if they will really make dragonfly faster than
FreeBSD (it's their goal)...
http://people.freebsd.org/~kris/scaling/dfly.html
Good luck to them, they need it :)
indeed:)
___
freebsd-questions@freebsd.org mailing list
Ivan Voras([EMAIL PROTECTED])@2008.12.02 20:00:46 +0100:
Wojciech Puchar wrote:
It's already usable on DragonFly. DragonFLY itself is stable, but only
supports one CPUIt probably will never be ported to FreeBSD due to
API differences.
time to wait and see if they will really make
That's a stupid benchmark. DragonFly doesn't have SMP support yet.
my benchmark is to start it install programs i use commonly and compare
it to other system.
on single-core machine i tested FreeBSD is faster.
___
freebsd-questions@freebsd.org
time to wait and see if they will really make dragonfly faster than
FreeBSD (it's their goal)...
http://people.freebsd.org/~kris/scaling/dfly.html
Good luck to them, they need it :)
That's a stupid benchmark. DragonFly doesn't have SMP support yet.
So? Look at just the UP scores
Le 01/12/2008 à 09:59:15-0600, Kirk Strauser a écrit
I have ZFS on my 7.1-PRERELEASE system, and while it does some spiffy things,
in general I'm a bit underwhelmed.
PROS:
Adding new filesystems on a whim is really nice.
It has a lot of really cool other features that I will
performance and 1.8 times higher than freebsd 4 UP performance.
Please explain how DragonFly's lack of SMP affects the UP performance?
doesn't affect of course.
yes dragonflybsd is slower.
___
freebsd-questions@freebsd.org mailing list
To come back to FreeBSD, I'm using FreeBSD since 10 years, UFS is very
slow, and when UFS2 is release I'm very happy to switch to UFS2.
simply turn on softupdates and turn off atime
___
freebsd-questions@freebsd.org mailing list
Wojciech Puchar([EMAIL PROTECTED])@2008.12.02 22:14:55 +0100:
That's a stupid benchmark. DragonFly doesn't have SMP support yet.
my benchmark is to start it install programs i use commonly and compare
it to other system.
on single-core machine i tested FreeBSD is faster.
Good things come
Peter Giessel([EMAIL PROTECTED])@2008.12.02 12:22:09 -0900:
Please explain how DragonFly's lack of SMP affects the UP performance?
Also, from an end user perspective, you can hardly get a computer
these days that only has one core. SMP performance is very relevant
from that perspective.
So
I have ZFS on my 7.1-PRERELEASE system, and while it does some spiffy things,
in general I'm a bit underwhelmed.
PROS:
Adding new filesystems on a whim is really nice.
It has a lot of really cool other features that I will probably never need.
CONS:
I have nearly 3GB of wired RAM, but
I have ZFS on my 7.1-PRERELEASE system, and while it does some spiffy things,
in general I'm a bit underwhelmed.
UFS is excellent. your problem is that you like to have lots of
filesystems. why don't just make one or one per disk?
i have one per disk/mirror configuration everywhere except
On Monday 01 December 2008 11:49:46 Wojciech Puchar wrote:
UFS is excellent. your problem is that you like to have lots of
filesystems. why don't just make one or one per disk?
For all the usual reasons: faster fsck, ability to set attributes on each
filesystem (noexec, noatime, ro), a
On Mon, Dec 1, 2008 at 5:59 PM, Kirk Strauser [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
I have ZFS on my 7.1-PRERELEASE system, and while it does some spiffy things,
in general I'm a bit underwhelmed.
PROS:
Adding new filesystems on a whim is really nice.
yes it is.
It has a lot of really cool other
On Monday 01 December 2008 13:24:48 Valentin Bud wrote:
On Mon, Dec 1, 2008 at 5:59 PM, Kirk Strauser [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
It has a lot of really cool other features that I will probably never
need.
then you don't need ZFS. usually you choose a technology because you need
it. if you
Kirk Strauser wrote:
At this point, I'm almost ready to go back to good ol' UFS2, but I'd hate to
give up that easy addition of new filesystems. I *could* have a single 700GB
root FS but that just doesn't seem right. Are there any good, tested GEOM-
based ways of getting that
UFS is excellent. your problem is that you like to have lots of
filesystems. why don't just make one or one per disk?
For all the usual reasons: faster fsck, ability to set attributes on each
filesystem (noexec, noatime, ro), a runaway process writing to /tmp won't cause
problems in /var,
On Mon, 1 Dec 2008 22:26:04 +0100 (CET)
Wojciech Puchar [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
it simply wastes RAM and CPU power. same thing takes 10-20 times more
CPU that with UFS
ZFS does things that UFS is not capable of. These (bloathware) things
cost memory indeed. But that memory is certainly not
On Mon, Dec 1, 2008 at 9:21 PM, Kirk Strauser [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
On Monday 01 December 2008 11:49:46 Wojciech Puchar wrote:
UFS is excellent. your problem is that you like to have lots of
filesystems. why don't just make one or one per disk?
For all the usual reasons: faster fsck,
Ivan Voras wrote:
Kirk Strauser wrote:
At this point, I'm almost ready to go back to good ol' UFS2, but I'd hate to
give up that easy addition of new filesystems. I *could* have a single 700GB
root FS but that just doesn't seem right. Are there any good, tested GEOM-
based ways of
27 matches
Mail list logo
