Page 3 of 3 FirstFirst 123
Results 21 to 25 of 25

Thread: Benchmarks Of The Official KQ ZFS Linux Module

  1. #21
    Join Date
    Feb 2011
    Posts
    1

    Default Arc2 & zil

    I've been fascinated by ZFS ever since reading all the benchmarks at zfsbuild.com. Would it be possible for you to run some benchmarks with mechanical storage and SSD ARC2 and SSD ZIL drives for speed?

    Preferably on moderately decent hardware:
    64-bit CPU
    8 GB ram
    6 Gb sata ports

    As others have mentioned, testing RAIDZ and mirroring would also be awesome.

  2. #22
    Join Date
    Nov 2008
    Posts
    418

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by kneufeld View Post
    I've been fascinated by ZFS ever since reading all the benchmarks at zfsbuild.com. Would it be possible for you to run some benchmarks with mechanical storage and SSD ARC2 and SSD ZIL drives for speed?

    Preferably on moderately decent hardware:
    64-bit CPU
    8 GB ram
    6 Gb sata ports

    As others have mentioned, testing RAIDZ and mirroring would also be awesome.
    Look below, I provide a link where they bench BTRFS vs ZFS, and ZFS outperforms BTRFS, because BTRFS can not handle many discs. In other words, BTRFS, scales bad.






    Quote Originally Posted by RealNC View Post
    I've just read the LKML thread. I don't see how it's broken. The devs replied to Edward explaining why his concerns don't affect BTRFS. (And there are no further replies from Edward after that.)
    Ok, you have not read the BTRFS mail lists nor forums. BTRFS is quite unstable and have been massively critizised, not only by Edward.





    Quote Originally Posted by drag View Post
    That is because BTRFS is programmed in C code, while ZFS is written in magic pixie dust.
    Well, I told you that ZFS scales better than BTRFS, and it is because of ZFS is targeted to large scale Enterprise, whereas BTRFS, ext4, ... are targeted for small servers. It is not bullshit, nor FUD. I can prove it to you (as always). Read this and see how bad BTRFS performs:
    http://marc.info/?l=linux-btrfs&m=128101763830740&w=2





    Quote Originally Posted by BlackStar View Post
    He's probably set up google alerts for 'btrfs' and 'zfs' and posts spam each and every appearance of these words.

    It doesn't help that his posts are pure FUD at best.
    You clearly dont know what FUD is. I suggest you read about FUD, beacuse you claim that I FUD.

    I provided benchmarks which shows that BTRFS scales bad, compared to ZFS on many discs. I did not lie about that. This proves I do not FUD, I speak true, and this proves that Blackstar speaks not true about me, I am not a FUDer (because I showed proof). Or, can you Blackstar provide links as I did, that supports your claim about me? No? Then dont call me a FUDer, because that would make you the FUDer, when you say untrue things about other people.

  3. #23
    Join Date
    Aug 2009
    Location
    Albuquerque NM USA
    Posts
    42

    Default Please include more oldies

    As usual, I wish there were more of the "old" filesystems included, such as JFS and Reiser3, but I guess it's nice you included XFS instead of the article being 100% dedicated to the next-generation stuff.

    I know the oldies don't really compare to the new stuff in terms of features (where ZFS particularly shines), but there are still a lot of cases where I think they can outperform, especially given that you're benchmarking on a single-disc setup. But thinking ain't knowing, which is why it'd be cool to see the numbers.

    I wanna know if the new guys are ready to take on reiser3's awesomeness for maildirs, JFS' quickness at doing certain things with big files particularly on cpu-challenged systems like Atom, and so on. By leaving out some of the key players, a person still can't look at a benchmark article like this and guess which filesystem is best for a particular job.

    Aside from that complaint, though, this is a pretty interesting article. I didn't know if ZFS (once freed of FUSE) would really be a competitive performer and it looks like there are some cases where it really is. Exciting.

  4. #24
    Join Date
    Dec 2007
    Posts
    144

    Default RaidZ in use here

    FYI, I have 4 2TB drives set up on my gentoo htpc box in a raidz configuration. It's working pretty well. I've done some basic benchmarking (link is http://forums.gentoo.org/viewtopic-p...7.html#6579697 ). The write speed isn't great but so far the filesystem seems stable which was my entire reason for wanting to go with zfs for softraid.

  5. #25
    Join Date
    Sep 2010
    Posts
    3

    Default

    Very interested in raidZ multidisk benchmarks. Bonus points for using SSD for zil and arc2 cache as others have mentioned.

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
  •