Page 1 of 6 123 ... LastLast
Results 1 to 10 of 54

Thread: Benchmarks Of The New ZFS On Linux: EXT4 Wins

  1. #1
    Join Date
    Jan 2007
    Posts
    14,373

    Default Benchmarks Of The New ZFS On Linux: EXT4 Wins

    Phoronix: Benchmarks Of The New ZFS On Linux: EXT4 Wins

    At the end of March was a new release of ZFS On Linux, a kernel module implementation of the ZFS file-system for Linux, and it was declared ZFS On Linux is now ready for wide-scale deployments. With this release (ZOL/SPL v0.6.1), new benchmarks are being done to compare ZFS to popular Linux file-systems. In this article is a brief preview against EXT4...

    http://www.phoronix.com/vr.php?view=MTM1NTA

  2. #2
    Join Date
    Feb 2008
    Posts
    205

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by phoronix View Post
    Phoronix: Benchmarks Of The New ZFS On Linux: EXT4 Wins

    At the end of March was a new release of ZFS On Linux, a kernel module implementation of the ZFS file-system for Linux, and it was declared ZFS On Linux is now ready for wide-scale deployments. With this release (ZOL/SPL v0.6.1), new benchmarks are being done to compare ZFS to popular Linux file-systems. In this article is a brief preview against EXT4...

    http://www.phoronix.com/vr.php?view=MTM1NTA
    What about a comparison against OpenSolaris derivatives? In my opinion, this benchmark is totally flawed without it.

  3. #3
    Join Date
    Sep 2008
    Location
    Vilnius, Lithuania
    Posts
    2,525

    Default

    Well, ryao won't be pleased with this article in the slightest.

  4. #4
    Join Date
    Oct 2012
    Location
    Sweden
    Posts
    258

    Default

    Isn't this like comparing an armoured truck versus a sportscar with central locking?

  5. #5
    Join Date
    Jan 2013
    Posts
    1,116

    Default

    From the ZFS on Linux FAQ:
    Additionally, it should be made clear that the ZFS on Linux implementation has not yet been optimized for performance. As the project matures we can expect performance to improve.

  6. #6
    Join Date
    Jan 2009
    Location
    Vienna, Austria; Germany; hello world :)
    Posts
    624

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by xeekei View Post
    Isn't this like comparing an armoured truck versus a sportscar with central locking?
    come on ! at least enable checksumming for everything (where possible) and some other fancy stuff for ext4

    then it's at least partly comparable



    raw performance-wise:

    when backing up my 1.2-1.5 TB of data from an ext4 home-partition to ext4 vs. btrfs & ZFS

    btrfs (with gzip-compression) takes about 2x the time than ext4 and approx. 1.5x the time of XFS (strangely xfs got slower with my latency-related tuning & ext4 got faster )

    ZFS with lz4 and/or lzjb compression takes about 2.5x-3x the time of ext4


    and that's only the raw transfer-time (8 minutes of ext4, approx. 30 minutes of ZFS) and neglecting all the data-safety wise features of e.g. ZFS:


    - sha256 checksums (said to be the slowest compared the default hash algorithm, lower probability of hash collisions with e.g. deduplication)
    - checksums on the whole filesystem - from file, metadata up to higher parts of the filesystem
    - optional single-filesystem dedup & multi-copy functionality (didn't know about that until recently and will use it on critical study/personal files): e.g. copies=2
    - there's several more - and I'm not really an expert in filesystems so just let your google-fu take you to wikipedia, etc. to find out more

    Quote Originally Posted by Vim_User View Post
    From the ZFS on Linux FAQ:

    Additionally, it should be made clear that the ZFS on Linux implementation has not yet been optimized for performance. As the project matures we can expect performance to improve.

    looking forward to it

  7. #7

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by GreatEmerald View Post
    Well, ryao won't be pleased with this article in the slightest.
    These tests are invalid. I suspect that they were cherry-picked, although I cannot prove that.

    The tests were done with early Intel SSDs that are known to lie about their block size, presumeably without making any adjustment to ashift. ext4's assumption that everything is 4KB is advantageous here. In additional, 3 of the 4 tests appear to be read/write once tests, which do not reflect real world workloads. I say 3 of 4 because I have not read enough about dbench to say one way or another, although I can say that the single client configuration is likely the worst possible test possible.
    Last edited by ryao; 04-18-2013 at 06:05 PM.

  8. #8

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by kernelOfTruth View Post
    come on ! at least enable checksumming for everything (where possible) and some other fancy stuff for ext4

    then it's at least partly comparable



    raw performance-wise:

    when backing up my 1.2-1.5 TB of data from an ext4 home-partition to ext4 vs. btrfs & ZFS

    btrfs (with gzip-compression) takes about 2x the time than ext4 and approx. 1.5x the time of XFS (strangely xfs got slower with my latency-related tuning & ext4 got faster )

    ZFS with lz4 and/or lzjb compression takes about 2.5x-3x the time of ext4


    and that's only the raw transfer-time (8 minutes of ext4, approx. 30 minutes of ZFS) and neglecting all the data-safety wise features of e.g. ZFS:


    - sha256 checksums (said to be the slowest compared the default hash algorithm, lower probability of hash collisions with e.g. deduplication)
    - checksums on the whole filesystem - from file, metadata up to higher parts of the filesystem
    - optional single-filesystem dedup & multi-copy functionality (didn't know about that until recently and will use it on critical study/personal files): e.g. copies=2
    - there's several more - and I'm not really an expert in filesystems so just let your google-fu take you to wikipedia, etc. to find out more




    looking forward to it
    You should use zfs send/recv for backups. It will outperform rsync on ext4, especially when doing incremental backup.

  9. #9
    Join Date
    Apr 2008
    Posts
    155

    Default Feature wise comparison

    I find it a little bit useless to just compare ZFS against EXT4.
    EXT4 is interesting as a point of comparison. But they don't even belong to the same generation.

    EXT4 is basically EXT3 with extents added in (which in turn was EXT2 with journalling thrown in).
    It an previous-gen filesystem.

    Where as ZFS is a newer generation file system with a ton of features (with checksumming of nearly everything, data de-duplication, redundancy, on-the-fly compression, copy-on-write, subvolumes and snapshots, and a whole volume management).
    It should be compared against similarly full-of-feature files system (btrfs more or less covers the same feature set).

    ZFS, BTRFS and Co vs. EXT4 and Co are never going to run at the same speed, given that the first have much more features that require some CPu cycles. And they don't target the same audience.


    The current benchmark would be like benchmarking FAT32 vs. a distributed cluster file system. Even if they are all filesystems, they don't have the same feature set at all and don't aim for the same users.

  10. #10
    Join Date
    Jan 2013
    Posts
    1,116

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by crapI3SD View Post
    and you are sane
    Freudian slip?
    Seriously, why hasn't this guy (ryao) been kick from the gentoo project.
    Maybe because, contrary to you, he is able to contribute to the open source world?

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •