Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

Benchmarks Of The Official KQ ZFS Linux Module

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

  • Benchmarks Of The Official KQ ZFS Linux Module

    Phoronix: Benchmarks Of The Official KQ ZFS Linux Module

    Last summer we delivered the news that a native ZFS file-system implementation for Linux was coming by an Indian company known as KQ Infotech where they leveraged the Lawrence Livermore National Laboratories ZFS Linux code, finished it off in some areas, and took care of the POSIX support. This ZFS Linux module was eventually released to a group of beta testers -- us included -- and we ran some ZFS Linux benchmarks back in November using the latest beta code. Since that point, however, KQ Infotech has made their ZFS Linux port publicly available and earlier this month they declared this work as stable via its general availability release. We have decided to benchmark this latest ZFS Linux code to see where the performance now stands against the EXT4, Btrfs, and XFS file-systems.

    http://www.phoronix.com/vr.php?view=15656

  • #2
    Interesting... ZFS support Linux is simply a good thing, exactly like ntfs-3g.

    Comment


    • #3
      It would be interesting to see the comparisons on an enterprise / business machine with production work loads. I'm guessing that's where ZFS is targeted at.

      It's really impressive what the KQ folks have done

      Comment


      • #4
        > Besides the pure file-system performance, each file-system carries its own set of pros and cons in terms of other features and capabilities and can be greatly tuned to enhance the disk performance -- i.e. with Btrfs there is disk compression support and now the space cache option as well.


        To provide some balance to that statement: ZFS also has compression support, and has a deduplication option as well. AFAIK there is no equivalent to the "space cache" option. I can't help but mention that ZFS supports self-healing if using > 1 disk.


        btw: "i.e." means "that is", or "in other words". "E.g." would have been more appropriate when giving examples of features and capabilities.

        Comment


        • #5
          Nice perform by ZFS.

          I'm surprised btrfs outperformed ext4 in most of the test, in contrast to previous benchmarks.

          is it a good moment now to move to this fs from ext4 on an SSD disk?

          Comment


          • #6
            Fireburn,
            Yes, ZFS is targeted to large Enterprise and many many discs. In a benchmark, BTRFS vs ZFS, BTRFS stopped gaining performance as they added more and more disks. ZFS just gained more and more performance. ZFS scales well. BTRFS does not - it is targeted for small systems with single disk, or a few disks.

            mmmmbop,
            ZFS provides self healing with one single disk, if you specify "copies=2". This means ZFS will store data blocks twice, halving the disk capacity. You can also specify "copies=3".

            Viper_Scull,
            I would not move to BTRFS from ext4, as BTRFS is broken by design, says Edward Shiskin, a RedHat developer:
            http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Btrfs
            Find his name on that page, which points to links to the Linux mail list discussions where they discuss if BTRFS is broken or not.

            Comment


            • #7
              Originally posted by kebabbert View Post
              Viper_Scull,
              I would not move to BTRFS from ext4, as BTRFS is broken by design, says Edward Shiskin, a RedHat developer:
              http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Btrfs
              Find his name on that page, which points to links to the Linux mail list discussions where they discuss if BTRFS is broken or not.
              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.)

              Comment


              • #8
                reiser4

                Would it be that hard to also include reiser4 in these sorts of tests?

                Comment


                • #9
                  Originally posted by kebabbert View Post
                  Fireburn,
                  Yes, ZFS is targeted to large Enterprise and many many discs. In a benchmark, BTRFS vs ZFS, BTRFS stopped gaining performance as they added more and more disks. ZFS just gained more and more performance. ZFS scales well.
                  That is because BTRFS is programmed in C code, while ZFS is written in magic pixie dust.

                  BTRFS does not - it is targeted for small systems with single disk, or a few disks.
                  For god sakes keep this factoid to yourself, otherwise the experienced enterprise file system programmers from IBM, Redhat, and Oracle might think that there is no point continuing to develop BTRFS and I want a nice file system for my netbook.

                  Comment


                  • #10
                    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.)
                    Yes, that's already been explained to kebabbert several times. He keeps spamming the same links over and over again, though.

                    Comment


                    • #11
                      Originally posted by smitty3268 View Post
                      Yes, that's already been explained to kebabbert several times. He keeps spamming the same links over and over again, though.
                      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.

                      Comment


                      • #12
                        GPL violation?

                        How can KQ Infotech be authorized to distribute binaries of the code? The binaries are surely derived in part from GPLed code (the kernel) and thus have the GPL apply to the whole work (including the ZFS code) OR distribution is not authorized.

                        This is precisely why distros cannot incorporate the ZFS code.

                        As far as I understand it, what might well be authorized is the distribution of the ZFS port's source code so that individual users could build a binary for their own system. But those users cannot distribute the resulting binary either.

                        Perhaps the GPL doesn't work in India. But I doubt it: their law is most likely like our law (Canada), both being descended from British law and the Berne Convention.

                        Comment


                        • #13
                          Originally posted by Hugh View Post
                          How can KQ Infotech be authorized to distribute binaries of the code? The binaries are surely derived in part from GPLed code (the kernel) and thus have the GPL apply to the whole work (including the ZFS code) OR distribution is not authorized.

                          This is precisely why distros cannot incorporate the ZFS code.

                          As far as I understand it, what might well be authorized is the distribution of the ZFS port's source code so that individual users could build a binary for their own system. But those users cannot distribute the resulting binary either.

                          Perhaps the GPL doesn't work in India. But I doubt it: their law is most likely like our law (Canada), both being descended from British law and the Berne Convention.
                          I'm not sure how you see it as a violation of the GPL. The source is available. The GPL does not prevent the supplying of binaries as well. If this was the case then pretty much everything that utilized linux (including binary delivered distributions) would be in violation themselves.

                          Comment


                          • #14
                            Originally posted by deanjo View Post
                            I'm not sure how you see it as a violation of the GPL. The source is available. The GPL does not prevent the supplying of binaries as well. If this was the case then pretty much everything that utilized linux (including binary delivered distributions) would be in violation themselves.
                            If it were as simple as that, don't you think that Linux distros would include ZFS?

                            Read the GPLv2.

                            Section 0 clearly says that the GPL covers "the program".

                            0. This License applies to any program or other work which contains a notice placed by the copyright holder saying it may be distributed under the terms of this General Public License. The "Program", below, refers to any such program or work, and a "work based on the Program" means either the Program or any derivative work under copyright law: that is to say, a work containing the Program or a portion of it, either verbatim or with modifications and/or translated into another language. (Hereinafter, translation is included without limitation in the term "modification".) Each licensee is addressed as "you".

                            Since the binary distribution surely includes GPLed code along with the ZFS code, the rules of the GPL now must (and yet cannot) cover the ZFS code. Note: the "distribution" part is key. Doing this at home, for yourself is not a problem.

                            Here's one part that is hard to conform to: section 2b:

                            b) You must cause any work that you distribute or publish, that in whole or in part contains or is derived from the Program or any part thereof, to be licensed as a whole at no charge to all third parties under the terms of this License.
                            Sun carefully ensured that their license cannot be combined with this one.

                            Comment


                            • #15
                              RAID

                              Please, test the ZFS Linux port in different software RAID versions (RAID1,RAID1+0 and especially RAID-Z vs RAID5. ZFS should shine in multidisk configurations.
                              Take a look at this article to see what is really capable ZFS --> http://www.anandtech.com/show/3963/z...d-benchmarking

                              Comment

                              Working...
                              X