Page 1 of 16 12311 ... LastLast
Results 1 to 10 of 238

Thread: Benchmarking ZFS On FreeBSD vs. EXT4 & Btrfs On Linux

Hybrid View

  1. #1
    Join Date
    Jan 2007
    Posts
    15,093

    Default Benchmarking ZFS On FreeBSD vs. EXT4 & Btrfs On Linux

    Phoronix: Benchmarking ZFS On FreeBSD vs. EXT4 & Btrfs On Linux

    ZFS is often looked upon as an advanced, superior file-system and one of the strong points of the Solaris/OpenSolaris platform while most feel that only recently has Linux been able to catch-up on the file-system front with EXT4 and the still-experimental Btrfs. ZFS is copy-on-write, self-healing with 256-bit checksums, supports compression, online pool growth, scales much better than the UFS file-system commonly used on BSD operating systems, supports snapshots, supports deduplication, and the list goes on for the features of this file-system developed by Sun Microsystems. In this article we are seeing how well the performance of the ZFS file-system under PC-BSD/FreeBSD 8.1 stacks up to UFS (including UFS+J and UFS+S) and on the Linux side with EXT4 and Btrfs.

    http://www.phoronix.com/vr.php?view=15150

  2. #2
    Join Date
    Sep 2008
    Posts
    89

    Default

    ZFS isn't only about performance. It's about file system integrity, redundancy, checksums and simple, reliable software RAID.

    It is mentioned in the beginning and then quickly cast aside - could at least get a feature comparison matrix.

    In any case btrfs' progress is impressive, hopefully it will reach the feature set level and maturity of ZFS at some point.

  3. #3

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by joffe View Post
    ZFS isn't only about performance. It's about file system integrity, redundancy, checksums and simple, reliable software RAID.
    The same about btrfs. Impressive numbers!

  4. #4
    Join Date
    Nov 2008
    Posts
    418

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by kraftman View Post
    The same about btrfs. Impressive numbers!
    What?? Does BTRFS also provide complete data integrity just like ZFS does?? I didnt know that! I mean, comp sci researchers have shown in studies that the data protection in ReiserFS, XFS, JFS, ext3, etc is really bad.

    But you claim the data protection in BTRFS is as good as ZFS? Where did you find that information, and where can I read more on this? Or, are you making this up?

  5. #5
    Join Date
    Jun 2009
    Posts
    13

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by kebabbert View Post
    What?? Does BTRFS also provide complete data integrity just like ZFS does??
    Yes

    Quote Originally Posted by kebabbert View Post
    where can I read more on this? Or, are you making this up?
    The btrfs web page

  6. #6
    Join Date
    Nov 2008
    Posts
    418

    Default

    The only reason to use ZFS, is your data is safe with ZFS. With all other common filesystems, you data slowly but surely gets corrupted. And the filesystem does not even notice this. This silent corruption is really bad. The examples are numerous.

    If you value a filesystem because of speed, then you have other priorities than Enterprise users (who value their data).

  7. #7
    Join Date
    Aug 2008
    Posts
    233

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by kebabbert View Post
    With all other common filesystems, you data slowly but surely gets corrupted. And the filesystem does not even notice this. This silent corruption is really bad. The examples are numerous.
    I would like to know more about this, can you provide me some more info or links?

  8. #8
    Join Date
    Jul 2010
    Posts
    42

    Default btrfs vs. zfs

    So could someone post a quick and unbiased comparison of btrfs vs. zfs in terms of features?

  9. #9
    Join Date
    Nov 2008
    Posts
    418

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by KDesk View Post
    I would like to know more about this, can you provide me some more info or links?
    First of all, there are lots of stories where people lost data. For instance the CERN study. There are several links here:
    http://storagemojo.com/2007/09/19/ce...tion-research/

    Also, then there are researchers in comp sci that tested common filesystems: XFS, JFS, ReiserFS, ext3, NTFS, etc and injected faulty bits to see how well the errors where handled. The result was depressing. They could not repair all errors. Not even detect all errors! How can you repair an error you do not detect?
    http://www.zdnet.com/blog/storage/ho...ta-at-risk/169

    And then researchers have tried to stress ZFS in the same way, but ZFS succeed detecting all errors. It could not repair all errors, because ZFS did not use raid. You need two disks to fetch a bad bit. The important part is to detect all errors. If you know there is an error, you can repair it. ZFS detects all errors:
    http://www.zdnet.com/blog/storage/zf...ity-tested/811


    Silent corruption is more common than you think.

  10. #10
    Join Date
    Jul 2008
    Posts
    1,727

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by kebabbert View Post
    The only reason to use ZFS, is your data is safe with ZFS. With all other common filesystems, you data slowly but surely gets corrupted. And the filesystem does not even notice this. This silent corruption is really bad. The examples are numerous.

    If you value a filesystem because of speed, then you have other priorities than Enterprise users (who value their data).
    first of all Raid5&6 do a pretty good job at data integrity. And for some reason, Solaris is not really a datacentre powerhouse, is it?

    But sure, ZFS is not about speed. What next? When BTRFS is finally seen as stable? 'ZFS is not about stability but licencing'?

Posting Permissions

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