Page 3 of 6 FirstFirst 12345 ... LastLast
Results 21 to 30 of 54

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

  1. #21
    Join Date
    Oct 2012
    Posts
    29

    Default

    Checksumming, deduplication, compression, volume management, great... But what's the point if it's dog slow? Can those features be turned off to make it faster than EXT4? I mean, is that shit really needed in a filesystem you got backups of? People talking about EXT4 being old tech etc, but it still beats anything out there when it comes to what matters: speed.

  2. #22
    Join Date
    Nov 2012
    Posts
    633

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Ericg View Post
    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.
    But supporting bsd you potentially support proprietary software. That's the reason to stop supporting bsd crap.

  3. #23
    Join Date
    Nov 2012
    Posts
    633

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by arokh View Post
    Checksumming, deduplication, compression, volume management, great... But what's the point if it's dog slow? Can those features be turned off to make it faster than EXT4? I mean, is that shit really needed in a filesystem you got backups of? People talking about EXT4 being old tech etc, but it still beats anything out there when it comes to what matters: speed.
    The problem with this benchmark is it benchmarks two different things. While ext4 and zfs are called file systems they're not equivalent file systems. It's like comparing ext4 to old, legacy, featureless and crappy ufs. ufs will be faster in some things, because it doesn't offer comparable protection to ext4.

  4. #24
    Join Date
    Jan 2013
    Posts
    1,116

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Pawlerson View Post
    But supporting bsd you potentially support proprietary software. That's the reason to stop supporting bsd crap.
    Then also stop to support LGPL licensed software, since it makes it much easier to write proprietary software.

  5. #25
    Join Date
    Feb 2010
    Posts
    9

    Default EXT4 win to be expected

    I think this result is to be expected. After all, EXT4 is generally the fastest Linux filesystem overall. EXT4 is pretty barebones too, it has none of the extendes list of features we like ZFS for.

    It would have been much more interesting to compare against BTRFS. If I choose a filesystem I'll choose between ZFS and BTRFS because of some fetures. If I just want a basic filesystem, I'll take EXT4 for its excellent performance, stability and user base.

    Markus

  6. #26
    Join Date
    Jun 2012
    Posts
    4

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by smitty3268 View Post
    Which is equally true of zfs. Nothing replaces a real backup.
    Nothing replaces a real good backup. ZFS gives you that garantee, EXT4 doen't.

    I would say that the best ZFS benchmarks are on www.zfsbuild.com, they taken a real world approach which they actually use in production and show you data about it.

  7. #27
    Join Date
    Nov 2012
    Posts
    633

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Vim_User View Post
    Then also stop to support LGPL licensed software, since it makes it much easier to write proprietary software.
    It is there for a reason: software libraries and some less important things.

  8. #28
    Join Date
    Sep 2011
    Posts
    141

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Pawlerson View Post
    It is there for a reason: software libraries and some less important things.
    Libraries of course can get licensed under GPL. LGPL is for Libraries that may be used for closed source applications. Like Qt/Gtk+/...

  9. #29
    Join Date
    Oct 2009
    Posts
    2,137

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Pawlerson View Post
    But supporting bsd you potentially support proprietary software. That's the reason to stop supporting bsd crap.
    First off, this reply should not be taken as representative of my opinions regarding ZFS, but what I really need to suggest to you, is that it is not only ok to support proprietary software, but NECESSARY. It is a very small minded person who thinks that all non-open-source software should be banned in absolute.

    The problem with your reasoning, is that it IS proprietary software that drives the market. Open source software wouldn't exist if not for proprietary software.

    The objective, contrary to your opinion, is not to prevent the existence and/or use of proprietary software, but to maintain USER FREEDOM. This is achieved by making the low level aspects of the machine and its control OPEN. An open source OPERATING SYSTEM, web browser, and basic productivity software.

    The reason why Linux has historically be slow to spread, is because it is generally a hostile environment for proprietary software. For example; Canadian tax day is next week. HOW MANY ACCOUNTING PACKAGES RUN ON LINUX? --- the answer is ZERO. And that is a big problem. Before you try to push people into making their software open, you need them to accept your platform, by making it INVITING to them -- to the developers of proprietary software.

    As a computer user.... I seek the FREEDOM to run the software I CHOOSE, in an environment that is NOT HOSTILE TO ME. The proprietary operating systems are hostile to ME, so I choose not to use them, but this is a difficult choice, because the only platforms that aren't hostile TO ME, are hostile to the developers of software that I may wish to use. Well, at least in terms of desktop operating systems. Android has bridged that gap for mobile devices, hostile to nobody except apple/ms/rim.

  10. #30
    Join Date
    Apr 2013
    Posts
    7

    Default The article title is highly misleading: there is no winner here

    I was going to write an email to Michael Larabel, since his article title and even the article as a whole are misleading.
    As others have noted in this thread before, the first big mistake here is a clear case of comparing apples and oranges. ZFS and EXT4 are completely different filesystems, yes, both allow the reading/writing of files, but the similarity stops there!

    ZFS is a great piece of software and probably the best filesystem for 24/7 servers, for many reasons, none of which are discussed in the article.
    EXT4 is an evolution of EXT3 which itself is an evolution of EXT2, which itself is an evolution of extfs, which itself is an evolution of the Minix filesystem written by Andrew Tanenbaum something like 30 years ago.

    But really the big question here is: what is the author trying to demonstrate? What exactly does "Winning" mean here? Imnsho, nothing.
    If one really is looking for the "fastestĘ filesystem for Linux then look no further than tmpfs. Which just goes to show that "fastest" is also completely meaningless, unless it is qualified.

    Michael, you can do much better than that!

Posting Permissions

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