Page 2 of 3 FirstFirst 123 LastLast
Results 11 to 20 of 21

Thread: Running The Native ZFS Linux Kernel Module, Plus Benchmarks

  1. #11
    Join Date
    Jun 2010
    Posts
    70

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by gilboa View Post
    You don't really know what you're talking about, right? *

    - Gilboa
    * Looks at the Linux server w/48 SAS drives in disbelief...
    what's the configuration? All 48 drives converging onto a single ext4 filesystem? If not, then I think you really don't know what he is talking about. He was talking about ZFS managing large number of disks and scaling performance better than Linux filesystems. And I agree with him.

    We have a Linux server with 68 drives but that doesn't tell anything about how the filesystem is using those 68 drives.

  2. #12
    Join Date
    Oct 2008
    Posts
    2,912

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by devsk View Post
    what's the configuration? All 48 drives converging onto a single ext4 filesystem? If not, then I think you really don't know what he is talking about. He was talking about ZFS managing large number of disks and scaling performance better than Linux filesystems. And I agree with him.

    We have a Linux server with 68 drives but that doesn't tell anything about how the filesystem is using those 68 drives.
    He should at least know that XFS is generally the FS of choice under linux when going with large numbers of disks, so pointing out some EXT4 improvement as proof of linux's failure is missing the point entirely.

  3. #13
    Join Date
    Oct 2006
    Posts
    531

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by devsk View Post
    what's the configuration? All 48 drives converging onto a single ext4 filesystem? If not, then I think you really don't know what he is talking about. He was talking about ZFS managing large number of disks and scaling performance better than Linux filesystems. And I agree with him.

    We have a Linux server with 68 drives but that doesn't tell anything about how the filesystem is using those 68 drives.
    Hence the reason I said he had little idea what he's talking about - ext4 doesn't handle physical volumes - its not btrfs or ZFS.
    If you have large RAID (Say, above 6-8 drives), you don't use a ext4/LVM/SoftMD combo - you simply buy an expensive SAS RAID controller w/ RAID6 support and huge amounts of memory. (In my case: multiple ext4 partitions over a single LVM PV running on an external FC box)

    - Gilboa
    DEV-NG: Intel S2600C0, 2xE52658V2, 32GB, 4x2TB, GTX680, F20/x86_64, Dell U2711.
    DEV: Intel S5520SC, 2xX5680, 36GB, 5x320GB, GTX550, F20/x86_64, Dell U2711 (^).
    SRV: Tyan Tempest i5400XT, 2xE5335, 8GB, 4x2TB, 9800GTX, F20/x86-64, Dell U2412.
    LAP: ASUS N56VJ, i7-3630QM, 16GB, 1TB, 635M, F20/x86_64.

  4. #14
    Join Date
    Jun 2010
    Posts
    70

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by phoronix View Post
    Phoronix: Running The Native ZFS Linux Kernel Module, Plus Benchmarks

    In August we delivered the news that Linux was soon to receive a native ZFS Linux kernel module. The Sun (now Oracle) ZFS file-system has long been sought after for Linux, though less now since Btrfs has emerged, but incompatibilities between the CDDL and GPL licenses have barred such support from entering the mainline Linux kernel. There has been ZFS-FUSE to run the ZFS file-system in user-space, but it comes with slow performance. There has also been work by the Lawrence Livermore National Laboratories in porting ZFS to Linux as a native Linux kernel module. This LLNL ZFS work though is incomplete but still progressing due to a US Department of Energy contract. It is though via this work that developers in India at KQ Infotech have made working a Linux kernel module for ZFS. In this article are some new details on KQ Infotech's ZFS kernel module and our results from testing out the ZFS file-system on Linux.

    http://www.phoronix.com/vr.php?view=15474
    Any plans to repeat the same with latest code on top of 2.6.35.10 kernel? It upgrades to more recent ZFS codebase as well as fixes a lot of issues. In my own experiences, the latest code is stable and very performant, even on a USB drive.

  5. #15

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by devsk View Post
    what's the configuration? All 48 drives converging onto a single ext4 filesystem? If not, then I think you really don't know what he is talking about. He was talking about ZFS managing large number of disks and scaling performance better than Linux filesystems. And I agree with him.
    You've agreed with the most famous troll from osnews.com.

  6. #16
    Join Date
    Jun 2010
    Posts
    70

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by kraftman View Post
    You've agreed with the most famous troll from osnews.com.
    And this post makes you what?

    I would stand up for people when they say something right. Troll or not! Amazing what bias can do to our thought process and responses.

    And then there are people like you. Who label others just for their strong beliefs. Shame on you!

  7. #17
    Join Date
    Jan 2011
    Posts
    1

    Lightbulb Native ZFS on Ubuntu and Fedora Linux

    KQ Infotech has officialy made available the source code for native ZFS linux modules.
    More info at kqstor.com

    You can create and install packages for Ubuntu (Debian) and Fedora Linux using the tutorial at blog.vx.sk.

  8. #18
    Join Date
    Jun 2010
    Posts
    70

    Default

    Any plans to compare the latest zfs-on-linux code from LLNL (as opposed to KQI code you used earlier)? It runs stable on 2.6.38 here.

    http://zfsonlinux.org/

  9. #19
    Join Date
    May 2007
    Posts
    322

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by devsk View Post
    Any plans to compare the latest zfs-on-linux code from LLNL (as opposed to KQI code you used earlier)? It runs stable on 2.6.38 here.

    http://zfsonlinux.org/
    Nice find, how does it compare to the latest stable BTRFS all up?
    I'm sure it's much more featureful, but aside from that how does it compare.

  10. #20
    Join Date
    Jun 2010
    Posts
    70

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by jalyst View Post
    Nice find, how does it compare to the latest stable BTRFS all up?
    I'm sure it's much more featureful, but aside from that how does it compare.
    The project is in nascent state but stable. Stability not performance has been the goal so far.

    Performance will improve with time. In my experience, its definitely better than zfs-fuse at this time but not upto BTRFS or ext4.

    Reads scale well in RAIDZ.

Tags for this Thread

Posting Permissions

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