Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

Benchmarks Of The Official KQ ZFS Linux Module

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

  • #21
    Arc2 & zil

    I've been fascinated by ZFS ever since reading all the benchmarks at zfsbuild.com. Would it be possible for you to run some benchmarks with mechanical storage and SSD ARC2 and SSD ZIL drives for speed?

    Preferably on moderately decent hardware:
    64-bit CPU
    8 GB ram
    6 Gb sata ports

    As others have mentioned, testing RAIDZ and mirroring would also be awesome.

    Comment


    • #22
      Originally posted by kneufeld View Post
      I've been fascinated by ZFS ever since reading all the benchmarks at zfsbuild.com. Would it be possible for you to run some benchmarks with mechanical storage and SSD ARC2 and SSD ZIL drives for speed?

      Preferably on moderately decent hardware:
      64-bit CPU
      8 GB ram
      6 Gb sata ports

      As others have mentioned, testing RAIDZ and mirroring would also be awesome.
      Look below, I provide a link where they bench BTRFS vs ZFS, and ZFS outperforms BTRFS, because BTRFS can not handle many discs. In other words, BTRFS, scales bad.






      Originally posted by RealNC View Post
      I've just read the LKML thread. I don't see how it's broken. The devs replied to Edward explaining why his concerns don't affect BTRFS. (And there are no further replies from Edward after that.)
      Ok, you have not read the BTRFS mail lists nor forums. BTRFS is quite unstable and have been massively critizised, not only by Edward.





      Originally posted by drag View Post
      That is because BTRFS is programmed in C code, while ZFS is written in magic pixie dust.
      Well, I told you that ZFS scales better than BTRFS, and it is because of ZFS is targeted to large scale Enterprise, whereas BTRFS, ext4, ... are targeted for small servers. It is not bullshit, nor FUD. I can prove it to you (as always). Read this and see how bad BTRFS performs:
      http://marc.info/?l=linux-btrfs&m=128101763830740&w=2





      Originally posted by BlackStar View Post
      He's probably set up google alerts for 'btrfs' and 'zfs' and posts spam each and every appearance of these words.

      It doesn't help that his posts are pure FUD at best.
      You clearly dont know what FUD is. I suggest you read about FUD, beacuse you claim that I FUD.

      I provided benchmarks which shows that BTRFS scales bad, compared to ZFS on many discs. I did not lie about that. This proves I do not FUD, I speak true, and this proves that Blackstar speaks not true about me, I am not a FUDer (because I showed proof). Or, can you Blackstar provide links as I did, that supports your claim about me? No? Then dont call me a FUDer, because that would make you the FUDer, when you say untrue things about other people.

      Comment


      • #23
        Please include more oldies

        As usual, I wish there were more of the "old" filesystems included, such as JFS and Reiser3, but I guess it's nice you included XFS instead of the article being 100% dedicated to the next-generation stuff.

        I know the oldies don't really compare to the new stuff in terms of features (where ZFS particularly shines), but there are still a lot of cases where I think they can outperform, especially given that you're benchmarking on a single-disc setup. But thinking ain't knowing, which is why it'd be cool to see the numbers.

        I wanna know if the new guys are ready to take on reiser3's awesomeness for maildirs, JFS' quickness at doing certain things with big files particularly on cpu-challenged systems like Atom, and so on. By leaving out some of the key players, a person still can't look at a benchmark article like this and guess which filesystem is best for a particular job.

        Aside from that complaint, though, this is a pretty interesting article. I didn't know if ZFS (once freed of FUSE) would really be a competitive performer and it looks like there are some cases where it really is. Exciting.

        Comment


        • #24
          RaidZ in use here

          FYI, I have 4 2TB drives set up on my gentoo htpc box in a raidz configuration. It's working pretty well. I've done some basic benchmarking (link is http://forums.gentoo.org/viewtopic-p...7.html#6579697 ). The write speed isn't great but so far the filesystem seems stable which was my entire reason for wanting to go with zfs for softraid.

          Comment


          • #25
            Very interested in raidZ multidisk benchmarks. Bonus points for using SSD for zil and arc2 cache as others have mentioned.

            Comment

            Working...
            X