Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

Benchmarks Of ZFS-FUSE On Linux Against EXT4, Btrfs

Collapse
X
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • Benchmarks Of ZFS-FUSE On Linux Against EXT4, Btrfs

    Phoronix: Benchmarks Of ZFS-FUSE On Linux Against EXT4, Btrfs

    Last week we reported that a native ZFS implementation for Linux is soon being released that is based upon the work by Lawrence Livermore National Laboratory to bring Sun's ZFS file-system to Linux as a CDDL-licensed kernel module. As said though in that article, there is already a ZFS module for FUSE (File-system in User-space) that is already available and with it not living in the GPL-land of the Linux kernel, it is legally allowed, but it does not come without some performance overhead. Over the weekend though there's been some discussions in the related forum thread and elsewhere about the dependability of ZFS-FUSE and what the level of impact on using FUSE really amounts to in real-world usage. We have tested the ZFS-FUSE -- both the latest stable and Git snapshots -- and have compared this alternate ZFS Linux implementation to that of the native EXT4 and Btrfs.

    http://www.phoronix.com/vr.php?view=15235

  • #2
    On he first page, below the picture, the article says "KQ Infotech, the company working on a native ZFS module based upon the code of the Lawrence Livermore National Laboratory, has referred to ZFS as "crap."" I'm fairly sure you meant they were reffering to ZFS-Fuse as crap, not zfs itself.

    Comment


    • #3
      Originally posted by Zhick View Post
      On he first page, below the picture, the article says "KQ Infotech, the company working on a native ZFS module based upon the code of the Lawrence Livermore National Laboratory, has referred to ZFS as "crap."" I'm fairly sure you meant they were reffering to ZFS-Fuse as crap, not zfs itself.
      Typo, yeah, meant FUSE. Fixed. Thanks.
      Michael Larabel
      http://www.michaellarabel.com/

      Comment


      • #4
        While interesting to see how the different FSes performs, there is so much more to it than speed, imho.

        Like the fact that ext4 will loose your data ( it has done, no one will trust it for another 5 years ). And btrfs is still a bit raw, but has potential. Still needs a few years worth of enterprise usage to be considered trustworthy.

        It's amazing that linux has so many filesystems to choose from, but not one really good choise

        How about this test for a more "real world" example:

        Given /some/dir to be backed up at regular intervals, how much work is involved to do that for the different FSes? To spicy things up, the backup has to be of the state of that dir at exactly 1pm.

        Comment


        • #5
          Did you use "-o big_writes" for zfs-fuse? Also, GlusterFS recommends to use a patched fuse version, that increases max IO from 128kiB to 1 MiB.
          See http://www.gluster.com/community/doc...php/User_Guide in the section Fuse.

          Thanks,
          Bernd

          Comment


          • #6
            Originally posted by andrnils View Post
            Given /some/dir to be backed up at regular intervals, how much work is involved to do that for the different FSes?
            It's virtually zero work for both BTRFS and ZFS, because they are both COW filesystems. Obviously for other filesystems it's much more work.

            Comment


            • #7
              Originally posted by smitty3268 View Post
              It's virtually zero work for both BTRFS and ZFS, because they are both COW filesystems. Obviously for other filesystems it's much more work.
              Snapshots only help you recover from "oops, I accidentally deleted a file", not "uh oh, the hard disk just failed".

              Comment


              • #8
                BTRFS sucks

                BTRFS sucks, and now that it's biggest pusher (Oracle) stopped caring about Linux, I seriously doubt it will ever get better. In fact, Oracle has an incentive to hurt BTRFS and Linux because they're a free alternative (and in direct competition) to their proprietary and revenue-generating Solaris.

                One example it can hurt BTRFS is by not allowing it to be licensed GPL3+ and thus usable in the Grub2 bootloader.

                Comment


                • #9
                  Originally posted by waucka View Post
                  Snapshots only help you recover from "oops, I accidentally deleted a file", not "uh oh, the hard disk just failed".
                  True enough, but the requirement to make a backup of /some/dir at an exact time means for zfs and btrfs ( and any other fs which has snapshots ) that use use one command to get the snapshot, and at least for zfs just one other to copy the snapshot to a tape or whatever device floats your boat.

                  With extX and the rest, getting a backup at a specific time would mean that the fs would have to be remounted read-only for the duration of a tar or some such. Which in many production environments is a no-go.

                  At the end, was that 15% increase in some synthetic benchmark worth it?

                  And for those who wants to throw lvm into the picture to get snapshosts: it is not part of the FSes, so that is another discussion.

                  Comment


                  • #10
                    who the heck use zfs or btrfs for server work with one disk and no redundancy?

                    Comment


                    • #11
                      EXT4 is seriously kicking ass in those benches :P

                      Comment


                      • #12
                        Originally posted by andrnils View Post
                        Like the fact that ext4 will loose your data ( it has done, no one will trust it for another 5 years ). And btrfs is still a bit raw, but has potential. Still needs a few years worth of enterprise usage to be considered trustworthy.
                        If this was Ext4 fault and if this happened in enterprise system (which didn't).

                        It's amazing that linux has so many filesystems to choose from, but not one really good choise
                        Damn troll. Ext3, Ext4, XFS are great file systems. And no, it's not amazing, but it's something natural, because it's an Operating System which is present probably in every environment. What's the good choice in your opinion?

                        Comment


                        • #13
                          Originally posted by edogawaconan View Post
                          who the heck use zfs or btrfs for server work with one disk and no redundancy?
                          Hopefully no one. But what has that to do with how easy it is to make a backup?

                          Even with ext4 on a 20 drive raid6 you would potentionally want to do a backup. With or with downtime, that is the question...

                          Comment


                          • #14
                            Originally posted by andrnils View Post
                            Hopefully no one. But what has that to do with how easy it is to make a backup?
                            Well, actually I'm waiting for benchmark on mirrored/raid(5|z) disks (also the benchmark with failed disk(s)), not on a simple disk.

                            Originally posted by andrnils View Post
                            Even with ext4 on a 20 drive raid6 you would potentionally want to do a backup. With or with downtime, that is the question...
                            20 drives raid6 sounds like a nightmare.

                            Comment


                            • #15
                              Originally posted by stan View Post
                              BTRFS sucks, and now that it's biggest pusher (Oracle) stopped caring about Linux, I seriously doubt it will ever get better. In fact, Oracle has an incentive to hurt BTRFS and Linux because they're a free alternative (and in direct competition) to their proprietary and revenue-generating Solaris.
                              While there are demands for ZFS on Linux I don't consider there's any serious competition. If Oracle will slow down btrfs development then people will use ZFS with Linux.

                              One example it can hurt BTRFS is by not allowing it to be licensed GPL3+ and thus usable in the Grub2 bootloader.
                              If btrfs will be licensed under GPL3+ then will it be compatible with the rest of the kernel?

                              Comment

                              Working...
                              X