Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

FreeBSD ZFS vs. ZoL Performance, Ubuntu ZFS On Linux Reference

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

  • FreeBSD ZFS vs. ZoL Performance, Ubuntu ZFS On Linux Reference

    Phoronix: FreeBSD ZFS vs. ZoL Performance, Ubuntu ZFS On Linux Reference

    With iX Systems having released new images of FreeBSD reworked with their ZFS On Linux code that is in development to ultimately replace their existing FreeBSD ZFS support derived from the code originally found in the Illumos source tree, here are some fresh benchmarks looking at the FreeBSD 12 performance of ZFS vs. ZoL vs. UFS and compared to Ubuntu Linux on the same system with EXT4 and ZFS.

    http://www.phoronix.com/vr.php?view=27772

  • gclarkii
    replied
    Originally posted by starshipeleven View Post
    They use UFS because they don't care for data integrity at the server/VM level. They are using Amazon datacenters to store their media and virtual servers anyway.
    First off, they have servers/systems all over the place. Some back end workloads are at Google, others are with Amazon, those run Linux of one flavor or another. They run FreeBSD on their Open Connect Appliance which are at their foundation are a type of file server cache, think Squid on steroids.
    Second, if I'm running a network/file cache, I'm not really worried about integrity so much as I am speed. Plus I can't remember the last time I had a disk die with ZERO warning, S.M.A.R.T. starts bitching long before it actually does die. I will admit however that I've only had 80 - 90 disks working for me over the last 5 years, someone from a server farm company might have seen instant death somewhere. That said, the OCA's are under constant monitoring; If a disk shows problems, they cut it out of the cache, and replace it with a spare. It's a cache, it will rebuild itself over the next couple of rebuilds. That is why they are running UFS, pure speed. On the other hand, I'm almost willing to bet they are running some type of mirroring/redundancy for the system drive.

    As far as I know, their back end runs Linux of whatever flavor and so talking about AWS in regard to FreeBSD does not make sense. The way that last part sounds to me is that your saying the UFS usage does not matter as it all runs on AWS anyway, but it does not. Yes, the master content servers is at AWS, but it is the OCA's(which are FreeBSD based), which carry the heavy load for content distribution. And yes, every so often some knothead claims the OCA's no longer run FreeBSD, but as of February of 2019, they still do.

    Take a look at the 2019 FOSDEM talk slides which shows one of their 40Gb/s Open Connect Appliances(with 249TB of storage). Talk about a file server from hell.
    And if you really want to go fast, how about hitting 90Gb/s+ with TLS traffic. That thing blows the above OCA away. And they all run FreeBSD.


    Leave a comment:


  • Dedobot
    replied
    Originally posted by Markore View Post
    Where is the freaking illumos on the charts??? WTH?? SmartOS, OmniOS, Dilos, Openindiana.. OpenZFS..
    Comparison with Solaris 11 proprietrary ZFS...
    Very bad guys to intentionally FORGET form where Zfs came from..
    Oracle Solaris is a free for testing and education- i.e. home use, but strictly prohibited from public benchmark. My own observation is its fastest zfs platform, no surprise. The big thing is not zfs itself but Solaris SMB and NFS fail sharing protocols.

    ​​​​​

    Leave a comment:


  • scineram
    replied
    Originally posted by starshipeleven View Post
    They use UFS because they don't care for data integrity at the server/VM level. They are using Amazon datacenters to store their media and virtual servers anyway.
    Where they do use ZFS. On Linux.

    Leave a comment:


  • Ironmask
    replied
    Originally posted by Markore View Post
    Where is the freaking illumos on the charts??? WTH?? SmartOS, OmniOS, Dilos, Openindiana.. OpenZFS..
    Comparison with Solaris 11 proprietrary ZFS...
    Very bad guys to intentionally FORGET form where Zfs came from..
    Hey, where's the Xenix benchmarks? That was the first big UNIX product that made it an industry standard. Pretty bad they got to benchmark the origin of UNIX in the industry huh?

    Leave a comment:


  • starshipeleven
    replied
    Originally posted by Markore View Post
    Where is the freaking illumos on the charts??? WTH?? SmartOS, OmniOS, Dilos, Openindiana.. OpenZFS..
    Did you miss the title?

    FreeBSD ZFS vs. ZoL Performance, Ubuntu ZFS On Linux Reference

    Very bad guys to intentionally FORGET form where Zfs came from..
    It's not about forgetting, it's about relevance in the modern world.

    Leave a comment:


  • starshipeleven
    replied
    Originally posted by k1e0x View Post
    may explain why NetFlix uses UFS.
    They use UFS because they don't care for data integrity at the server/VM level. They are using Amazon datacenters to store their media and virtual servers anyway.

    Ubuntu is using the 4.18 kernel but Linux 5.0+ is known to have performance problems with ZoL?
    No it is not known. There is some speculation.

    Leave a comment:


  • Markore
    replied
    Where is the freaking illumos on the charts??? WTH?? SmartOS, OmniOS, Dilos, Openindiana.. OpenZFS..
    Comparison with Solaris 11 proprietrary ZFS...
    Very bad guys to intentionally FORGET form where Zfs came from..

    Leave a comment:


  • Ironmask
    replied
    Pretty interesting tests. I'm planning on making a little in-house distro for embedded systems for myself and I'm debating on a Linux or FreeBSD base. Been leaning on FreeBSD for a while and it's nice to know performance isn't of much consideration now.

    Leave a comment:


  • Chugworth
    replied
    Originally posted by k1e0x View Post
    Cool. Nice to see the newer version is faster. Also may explain why NetFlix uses UFS.

    Ubuntu is using the 4.18 kernel but Linux 5.0+ is known to have performance problems with ZoL?
    Also is that ZoL 7.13 on Ubuntu or 8.0?
    I would have liked to see ZoL on the Linux 5.0 kernel thrown into the mix. As far as I know any performance problems are just speculation. I haven't seen any real tests on it. Or it could be that it performs basically the same but just has higher CPU usage.

    Leave a comment:

Working...
X