Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

Benchmarks Of ZFS-FUSE On Linux Against EXT4, Btrfs

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

  • locovaca
    replied
    Originally posted by andrnils View Post
    So say that the rsnapshot takes 30 minutes to run, does it guarantee that the last file to be transfered hasn't been altered?
    What's your business case for a transfer that is going to take 30 minutes but yet may have been altered from when you started? If you're looking to back up something like a transactional database making copies of open files is not the way to be going.

    Leave a comment:


  • curaga
    replied
    In my own usage I've noticed that ntfs-3g takes about 6x the time to mount compared to the kernel ntfs driver.

    Luckily mount times are only relevant on boot, and nobody serious runs linux on ntfs.

    Leave a comment:


  • kraftman
    replied
    Originally posted by curaga View Post
    @topic: So fuse about halfs the performance compared to native, and uses a ton of cpu. Did that surprise anyone?
    Nope, it's what I observe everyday when I use ntfs partition.

    Leave a comment:


  • edogawaconan
    replied
    Originally posted by curaga View Post
    @topic: So fuse about halfs the performance compared to native, and uses a ton of cpu. Did that surprise anyone?
    Shockingly, yes.
    Originally posted by droidhacker View Post
    In addition, they make some SERIOUS claims against the viability of a fuse-based filesystem that are, quite frankly, FALSE. Yes, the zfs-fuse filesystem can be slow... on OLD KERNELS. The limitations that these problems are created by have been solved. zfs-fuse, when correctly configured, gives near-platter performance levels!

    Leave a comment:


  • kraftman
    replied
    Originally posted by andrnils View Post
    ... then what? It's a design problem with ext4. Had they gone for COW things would have been better.
    And that if Ubuntu allowed to use Ext4 then it's not the same if some enterprise distribution would allow to. If I would be making some serious server or workstation I'd use enterprise distribution and I wouldn't judge file system just, because Ubuntu allowed me to use it (even if Ted said it's stable). If it was really Ext4 fault then it's bad, but it could be something else. Ext4 is just some kind of pudding before btrfs, so maybe COW wasn't worth to do.

    I guess sarcasm isn't your thing. When I have to use linux i tend to go with ext3.

    I guess i'm just naive and believe that if the devs of 2 FSes sat down togheter they could acheive something that was better than their individual tries.
    If only these file systems would have same goals.

    Leave a comment:


  • curaga
    replied
    On page 2:
    While OpenSolaris is designed around OpenSolaris
    True, but I guess not what you meant to say


    @topic: So fuse about halfs the performance compared to native, and uses a ton of cpu. Did that surprise anyone?

    Leave a comment:


  • andrnils
    replied
    Originally posted by locovaca View Post
    Works just fine for me with rsnapshot. Pretty minimal configuration, too. Why write an entire new FS for something that cron and rsync can do today?
    So say that the rsnapshot takes 30 minutes to run, does it guarantee that the last file to be transfered hasn't been altered?

    Leave a comment:


  • andrnils
    replied
    Originally posted by kraftman View Post
    If this was Ext4 fault and if this happened in enterprise system (which didn't).
    ... then what? It's a design problem with ext4. Had they gone for COW things would have been better.

    Originally posted by kraftman View Post
    Damn troll. Ext3, Ext4, XFS are great file systems. And no, it's not amazing, but it's something natural, because it's an Operating System which is present probably in every environment. What's the good choice in your opinion?
    I guess sarcasm isn't your thing. When I have to use linux i tend to go with ext3.

    I guess i'm just naive and believe that if the devs of 2 FSes sat down togheter they could acheive something that was better than their individual tries.

    Leave a comment:


  • locovaca
    replied
    Originally posted by andrnils View Post
    Given /some/dir to be backed up at regular intervals, how much work is involved to do that for the different FSes? To spicy things up, the backup has to be of the state of that dir at exactly 1pm.
    Works just fine for me with rsnapshot. Pretty minimal configuration, too. Why write an entire new FS for something that cron and rsync can do today?

    Leave a comment:


  • kraftman
    replied
    Originally posted by stan View Post
    BTRFS sucks, and now that it's biggest pusher (Oracle) stopped caring about Linux, I seriously doubt it will ever get better. In fact, Oracle has an incentive to hurt BTRFS and Linux because they're a free alternative (and in direct competition) to their proprietary and revenue-generating Solaris.
    While there are demands for ZFS on Linux I don't consider there's any serious competition. If Oracle will slow down btrfs development then people will use ZFS with Linux.

    One example it can hurt BTRFS is by not allowing it to be licensed GPL3+ and thus usable in the Grub2 bootloader.
    If btrfs will be licensed under GPL3+ then will it be compatible with the rest of the kernel?

    Leave a comment:

Working...
X