> Ubuntu shows its fragility, especially in random writing. macOS outperforms Ubuntu by a substantial margin, exceeding its performance by a factor exceeding 40
They talk about this "fragility" like it's a common, known thing. I must be living in the woods, so to speak and feel silly. What's this known Ubuntu fragility they mention, anyone know?
It’s a bit more ridiculous because Ubuntu (and most Linux distros) do not implement their own filesystem semantics from scratch. They’re using the Linux kernel which many distros build off of. So it’s more correct to say “Linux shows its fragility” rather than “Ubuntu”. It’s all just a bit awkward, but I guess I’m being pedantic.
I wish I could address your question, but I don’t think there is “fragility” in how Linux does random writing. It’s extremely durable. MacOS (and therefore Darwin) has some pretty awesome optimizations by owning both the hardware and software, but I don’t know if random writes on Mac “succeed” more often than on Linux. It’s also a bit nonsensical since the hardware really matters when we’re talking about write durability.
They talk about this "fragility" like it's a common, known thing. I must be living in the woods, so to speak and feel silly. What's this known Ubuntu fragility they mention, anyone know?