Page 2 of 6 FirstFirst 1234 ... LastLast
Results 11 to 20 of 54

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

  1. #11
    Join Date
    Oct 2012
    Posts
    257

    Default

    wow, what posts... one bullshit post after the other. even kindergarden would have a higher educated level than what i read here.

  2. #12
    Join Date
    Jan 2013
    Posts
    981

    Default

    asdx, as always inconsistent with his own opinion:
    Quote Originally Posted by asdx View Post
    I really don't care if BSD or Linux shares ideas between them, in fact, I believe that's a good thing.
    So actually you think that ZFS on Linux is a good thing? So why do you now state it the other way around? By the way, the same thing that is done by the antiBSD troll, in his previous incarnations as "systemd anals BSD", as you can see here (the original post was deleted): http://phoronix.com/forums/showthrea...280#post309280

    Grow up, start to contribute instead of bitching around on forums and maybe start to be consistent with your own opinion, then people will start to take you seriously.

  3. #13
    Join Date
    Jan 2012
    Posts
    54

    Default

    Jesus, don't feed the trolls, people. Seriously, the Phoronix forums are disgraceful. Spamming the forums with crap like this really should get you banned.

    I will say though that I would expect ZFS to be slower that EXT4, but there are no details here on how either filesystem was configured, and unless ashift for ZFS was set correctly these results are invalid. With that said, you can expect performance for SSD-backed ZFS to suck pretty hard after a full disk of writes, since there's still no vdev TRIM support. For closer apples to apples you could also configure both filesystems to have more comparable features enabled, but whatever.

    Multi-disk comparisons should be interesting, though I don't know how you decide which pool topologies you test, and what you do about ZFS support for SSD-backed ZIL and L2ARC.
    Last edited by pdffs; 04-18-2013 at 08:59 PM.

  4. #14
    Join Date
    Oct 2008
    Posts
    849

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by pdffs View Post
    Multi-disk comparisons should be interesting, though I don't know how you decide which pool topologies you test, and what you do about ZFS support for SSD-backed ZIL and L2ARC.
    An interesting test, and the only one that really matters in the real world, would be which one loses data quicker. Ext4 seems to have the lead there.

  5. #15
    Join Date
    Oct 2012
    Location
    Washington State
    Posts
    364

    Default

    I love reading comments from grown men acting like prebubescent punks on the tech sites. It reminds me of 3rd grade when the fat kid beat up on the smallest kid in school. Later on as they both matured the fat kid became the runt and ostracised from progress. The same will be with filesystems.

  6. #16
    Join Date
    Aug 2012
    Location
    Pennsylvania, United States
    Posts
    1,756

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by crapI3SD View Post
    He does contribute to open source, he contributes to proprietary software via BSD. That's worse that not contributing at all.
    Flawed argument is flawed. He contributes to both proprietary software and open source software. Just because you contribute to BSD doesnt mean your code is automatically closed so no one but some arbitrary company can see it. The code itself is open, their copy of the code is closed and therefore benefits BOTH open and closed source programs.

  7. #17
    Join Date
    May 2011
    Posts
    1,297

    Default

    Did ext4 win the reliability tests?

  8. #18
    Join Date
    Oct 2008
    Posts
    2,912

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by johnc View Post
    Did ext4 win the reliability tests?
    If both tie for, "i've never lost anything under this file system", does it even matter which one is technically more reliable?

    For big data centers, sure, but not for a desktop system.

  9. #19
    Join Date
    Jan 2012
    Posts
    54

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by smitty3268 View Post
    If both tie for, "i've never lost anything under this file system"
    That statement is totally true until it's not. Which is the only time you care.

  10. #20
    Join Date
    Oct 2008
    Posts
    2,912

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by pdffs View Post
    That statement is totally true until it's not. Which is the only time you care.
    Which is equally true of zfs. Nothing replaces a real backup.

Posting Permissions

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