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
freebsd-current@freebsd.org mailing list
To unsubscribe, send any mail to "freebsd-current-unsubscr...@freebsd.org"

Reply via email to