wow, what posts... one bullshit post after the other. even kindergarden would have a higher educated level than what i read here.
asdx, as always inconsistent with his own opinion:http://phoronix.com/forums/showthrea...280#post309280
Grow up, start to contribute instead of bitching around on forums and maybe start to be consistent with your own opinion, then people will start to take you seriously.
Jesus, don't feed the trolls, people. Seriously, the Phoronix forums are disgraceful. Spamming the forums with crap like this really should get you banned.
I will say though that I would expect ZFS to be slower that EXT4, but there are no details here on how either filesystem was configured, and unless ashift for ZFS was set correctly these results are invalid. With that said, you can expect performance for SSD-backed ZFS to suck pretty hard after a full disk of writes, since there's still no vdev TRIM support. For closer apples to apples you could also configure both filesystems to have more comparable features enabled, but whatever.
Multi-disk comparisons should be interesting, though I don't know how you decide which pool topologies you test, and what you do about ZFS support for SSD-backed ZIL and L2ARC.
Last edited by pdffs; 04-18-2013 at 09:59 PM.
I love reading comments from grown men acting like prebubescent punks on the tech sites. It reminds me of 3rd grade when the fat kid beat up on the smallest kid in school. Later on as they both matured the fat kid became the runt and ostracised from progress. The same will be with filesystems.
Did ext4 win the reliability tests?