I was positively surprised by FreeBSD 11.1 which was more than twice as fast as the best performing Linux, despite the fact that FreeBSD used ZFS which is a copy-on-write file system.
Match in what? RHEL and derivatives use XFS. Ubuntu is using EXT2 for root and is aggressively adopting ZFS. EXT4 until recently could not hold more than 16 TB of data. My ZFS pools these days are routinely close to 100TBOTOH ZFS might be cool and all (I confess my guilt I have only once tried to fresh install a FreeBSD box with ZFS root and failed, and didn't find time since then) but requires some learning curve, so it would be nice if UFS could match EXT4
If that was the case remotely then UFS would outerperform EXT4.I guess PostgreSQL was always a win for BSD, considering it started at Berkeley, and ended in 1985, although at that time it was just "Postgres" and didn't have SQL incorporated into it yet. SQL functionality was added in 1994. So, maybe the early engines were tailored to a BSD architecture, albeit that doesn't have anything to do with ZFS.
- Unfortunately it seems EXT4 swept the floor under UFS, specifcally on this benchmark.Match in what? RHEL and derivatives use XFS. Ubuntu is using EXT2 for root and is aggressively adopting ZFS. EXT4 until recently could not hold more than 16 TB of data. My ZFS pools these days are routinely close to 100TB
achill@ubuntu-achill:~$ mount | grep "/ "
/dev/vda1 on / type ext4 (rw,relatime,errors=remount-ro,stripe=4,data=ordered)
achill@ubuntu-achill:~$