Page 2 of 24 FirstFirst 123412 ... LastLast
Results 11 to 20 of 238

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

  1. #11
    Join Date
    Feb 2009
    Posts
    19

    Default

    It be nice to see some Opensolaris tests thrown in to even it out. After all that is the platform it is developed on. it mighten show much of a difference but if there is an improvement then part of issue could be with FreeBSD implementation.

  2. #12
    Join Date
    Jul 2008
    Posts
    69

    Default

    Michael is certainly right about the target audience here. Most people will be using small systems. It would, however, to get a good feature comparison.

    I have a seven drive system, but it's media and not performance constrained.

  3. #13
    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

  4. #14
    Join Date
    Jan 2009
    Posts
    1,445

    Default I'm (pleasantly) surprised that Btrfs is this nimble with such meagre hardware.

    The code path of Btrfs (similar to ZFS in this way, I believe) made me think that it was only going to be really useful on VERY large setups. I still would love to see cpu numbers, but I am actually a bit hopeful that this may be a truly scalable fs.

  5. #15
    Join Date
    Feb 2009
    Posts
    34

    Default

    From : http://www.h-online.com/open/news/it...l-1016851.html

    Currently, ZFS under Linux can only be used as a userspace file system via FUSE (zfs-fuse), which impacts performance. This is due to licensing incompatibilities between the Linux kernel (GPL) and ZFS (CDDL):

  6. #16
    Join Date
    Jul 2010
    Posts
    49

    Default

    btrfs is impressive. Chris judiciously selected his feature-set for technical reasons, as opposed silly marketing reasons. I mean, come on, a 128 bit filesystem? What was Sun thinking? That's a bullet point for glossies aimed at managers who don't understand exponents. (Disk storage space has been increasing at a uniform rate of about a bit every 1.5 years for the 23 years that I've been watching. And Linus would probably have a brain hemorrhage if presented with a set of patches for a 128 bit filesystem.) Pragmatic design decisions have allowed btrfs development to progress with remarkable agility.

  7. #17
    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. #18
    Join Date
    Jul 2010
    Posts
    45

    Default btrfs vs. zfs

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

  9. #19
    Join Date
    Nov 2007
    Posts
    53

    Default

    ZFS means a LOT to Solaris users. Because before ZFS, logical volume management and SW RAID meant Solstice Disksuitie (aka Solaris Volume Manager). And while it worked "ok", it was a real mess and had lots of frustrating limitations.

    ZFS looks REALLY interesting if you DO NOT look at LVM and other *ix OS's solutions. So for a Solaris person who knows the pains of SVM, ZFS looks absolutely grand!

    With regards to "feature" differences, I'd recommend just looking at the features from both sites. From my own experience, ZFS users tend to be "blind" and unwilling to look at other technologies... they've decided that they're #1. With regards to Linux distributions, I'd say greater than 50% of the so called "top" engineers I've met from Sun haven't used Linux since Red Hat 7.2.

    Btrfs is an IMPORTANT filesystem... like ZFS. Btrfs means enterprise like features, like ZFS. However, unlike ZFS, you will be able to use it with a Linux distribution (arguably, you could port it to your own Linux today... you just can't distribute that custom edition).

    So... ZFS, IMHO, doesn't bring too much to the table... UNLESS you're a Sun SVM + UFS user... then it's fantastic! I'm serious, UFS and SVM are ugly and have been very, very, very, very, very, very problematic in the past. ZFS came late for Sun and a bit late for the *ix world and N/A when it comes to a Linux distribution.

    I'm not saying that ZFS isn't ok... it is ok. But the future belongs to things like btrfs... NOT ZFS.

  10. #20
    Join Date
    Nov 2007
    Posts
    53

    Default

    One other variable.... ZFS belongs to Oracle. Btrfs development is primarily done by Oracle.

    So at the end of the day... this one may be settled by politics and the fact that Oracle HATES Linux (now).

Posting Permissions

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