Page 1 of 4 123 ... LastLast
Results 1 to 10 of 64

Thread: Benchmarks Of ZFS-FUSE On Linux Against EXT4, Btrfs

Hybrid View

  1. #1
    Join Date
    Jan 2007
    Posts
    15,419

    Default Benchmarks Of ZFS-FUSE On Linux Against EXT4, Btrfs

    Phoronix: Benchmarks Of ZFS-FUSE On Linux Against EXT4, Btrfs

    Last week we reported that a native ZFS implementation for Linux is soon being released that is based upon the work by Lawrence Livermore National Laboratory to bring Sun's ZFS file-system to Linux as a CDDL-licensed kernel module. As said though in that article, there is already a ZFS module for FUSE (File-system in User-space) that is already available and with it not living in the GPL-land of the Linux kernel, it is legally allowed, but it does not come without some performance overhead. Over the weekend though there's been some discussions in the related forum thread and elsewhere about the dependability of ZFS-FUSE and what the level of impact on using FUSE really amounts to in real-world usage. We have tested the ZFS-FUSE -- both the latest stable and Git snapshots -- and have compared this alternate ZFS Linux implementation to that of the native EXT4 and Btrfs.

    http://www.phoronix.com/vr.php?view=15235

  2. #2
    Join Date
    May 2008
    Location
    Germany/NRW
    Posts
    510

    Default

    On he first page, below the picture, the article says "KQ Infotech, the company working on a native ZFS module based upon the code of the Lawrence Livermore National Laboratory, has referred to ZFS as "crap."" I'm fairly sure you meant they were reffering to ZFS-Fuse as crap, not zfs itself.

  3. #3

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Zhick View Post
    On he first page, below the picture, the article says "KQ Infotech, the company working on a native ZFS module based upon the code of the Lawrence Livermore National Laboratory, has referred to ZFS as "crap."" I'm fairly sure you meant they were reffering to ZFS-Fuse as crap, not zfs itself.
    Typo, yeah, meant FUSE. Fixed. Thanks.

  4. #4
    Join Date
    Nov 2008
    Posts
    18

    Default

    While interesting to see how the different FSes performs, there is so much more to it than speed, imho.

    Like the fact that ext4 will loose your data ( it has done, no one will trust it for another 5 years ). And btrfs is still a bit raw, but has potential. Still needs a few years worth of enterprise usage to be considered trustworthy.

    It's amazing that linux has so many filesystems to choose from, but not one really good choise

    How about this test for a more "real world" example:

    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.

  5. #5
    Join Date
    Oct 2008
    Posts
    3,219

    Default

    Quote 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?
    It's virtually zero work for both BTRFS and ZFS, because they are both COW filesystems. Obviously for other filesystems it's much more work.

  6. #6
    Join Date
    Oct 2009
    Posts
    101

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by smitty3268 View Post
    It's virtually zero work for both BTRFS and ZFS, because they are both COW filesystems. Obviously for other filesystems it's much more work.
    Snapshots only help you recover from "oops, I accidentally deleted a file", not "uh oh, the hard disk just failed".

  7. #7

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by andrnils View Post
    Like the fact that ext4 will loose your data ( it has done, no one will trust it for another 5 years ). And btrfs is still a bit raw, but has potential. Still needs a few years worth of enterprise usage to be considered trustworthy.
    If this was Ext4 fault and if this happened in enterprise system (which didn't).

    It's amazing that linux has so many filesystems to choose from, but not one really good choise
    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?

  8. #8
    Join Date
    Nov 2008
    Posts
    18

    Default

    Quote 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.

    Quote 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.

  9. #9
    Join Date
    Jun 2010
    Posts
    71

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by kraftman View Post
    If this was Ext4 fault and if this happened in enterprise system (which didn't).



    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?
    Troll is an easy word! There is no doubt extX and XFS are great file systems. But they are so 10 years ago! Do they stack against ZFS or even against BTRFS in features? Where are consistent snapshots? where are the data checksums? Where is the built in compression and raid support?

    So, yes, they are great FS but not for today's storage requirements (checksums are not optional). So, calling the guy a troll is a trollish comment in my books.

  10. #10
    Join Date
    Apr 2010
    Posts
    271

    Default

    Quote 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?

Posting Permissions

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