Page 1 of 24 12311 ... LastLast
Results 1 to 10 of 238

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

  1. #1
    Join Date
    Jan 2007
    Posts
    15,115

    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
    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).

  4. #4
    Join Date
    Nov 2009
    Posts
    60

    Default

    I don't think ZFS was designed with this test in mind: one laptop hdd.
    The test should be done with multiple hdd arrays (and maybe even mixed with some ssd).
    Nevertheless, this test shows that ZFS is not such a good choice for a standard (one hdd) laptop/desktop system.

  5. #5

    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!

  6. #6

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by karl View Post
    I don't think ZFS was designed with this test in mind: one laptop hdd.
    The test should be done with multiple hdd arrays (and maybe even mixed with some ssd).
    Nevertheless, this test shows that ZFS is not such a good choice for a standard (one hdd) laptop/desktop system.
    Most desktop users though that get excited about hearing about ZFS + Linux possibilities are running such single drive setups though, so this testing is aimed at them (like most Phoronix articles towards desktop users), and not those enterprise installations.

  7. #7
    Join Date
    Jun 2009
    Posts
    13

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by karl View Post
    I don't think ZFS was designed with this test in mind: one laptop hdd.
    While it's true that ZFS has been engineered with servers in mind, you can use the ZFS features even on a single disk (well, at least btrfs can)

  8. #8
    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?

  9. #9

    Default

    Hi

    http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Btrfs_in_Fedora_13

    Yes. Btrfs does provide complete data integrity and not just metadata integrity by default. Aside from potential filesystem bugs, this is part of the design. Yum plugin in Fedora 13 already takes advance of the design.

    http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Featur...lbackWithBtrfs

  10. #10
    Join Date
    Jan 2007
    Location
    Germany
    Posts
    2,155

    Default

    Performance wise, btrfs destroyed the competition.

Posting Permissions

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