Results 1 to 10 of 28

Thread: ZFS vs. EXT4 On Linux Multi-Disk RAID Benchmarks

Hybrid View

  1. #1
    Join Date
    Jan 2007
    Posts
    14,538

    Default ZFS vs. EXT4 On Linux Multi-Disk RAID Benchmarks

    Phoronix: ZFS vs. EXT4 On Linux Multi-Disk RAID Benchmarks

    When dealing with multi-disk configurations and RAID, the ZFS file-system on Linux can begin to outperform EXT4 at least in some configurations...

    http://www.phoronix.com/vr.php?view=MTM1ODk

  2. #2
    Join Date
    Aug 2012
    Location
    Pennsylvania, United States
    Posts
    1,873

    Default

    Next up please, Michael, Ext4 LVM vs BTRFS Raid. With compression. Its the test we've been waiting on since whenever you do EXT4 you never do it overtop LVM and sometimes you forget to enable btrfs compression.

  3. #3
    Join Date
    Feb 2012
    Posts
    241

    Default

    And there you go...

  4. #4
    Join Date
    Nov 2007
    Posts
    49

    Default My XFS test (test1) across 8 x 1TB (Hitachi laptop 5K1000) RAID5 (Adaptec 52445)

    http://openbenchmarking.org/result/1...FO-1303116FO49

    Note, the 8 x 1TB are split across two ports of the Adaptec 52445 (4 drives on each).

    HW raid FTW... or maybe something else??

    (just for comparison purposes... why not put the whole disk benchmark set?.. noting that the testsuite failed to get some modules in my test1 case)

  5. #5
    Join Date
    Oct 2012
    Location
    Washington State
    Posts
    435

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Sergio View Post
    And there you go...
    Exactly. ZFS scales and ext4 not so much.

  6. #6
    Join Date
    Jan 2008
    Posts
    134

    Default BTRFS apologists proven wrong

    BTRFS apologists love to make excuses as to why BTRFS is slower than EXT4 by claiming that the more numerous features of BTRFS invariably yield slower function on bread-and-butter filesystem tasks. Well, take that! ZFS does more things and is faster than EXT4 at the same time! What excuses will they come up with now??

  7. #7
    Join Date
    Aug 2012
    Location
    Pennsylvania, United States
    Posts
    1,873

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by stan View Post
    BTRFS apologists love to make excuses as to why BTRFS is slower than EXT4 by claiming that the more numerous features of BTRFS invariably yield slower function on bread-and-butter filesystem tasks. Well, take that! ZFS does more things and is faster than EXT4 at the same time! What excuses will they come up with now??
    Its not a matter of BTRFS apologists... We've requested numerous times that Michael do an EXT4 over LVM vs BTRFS raid benchmark because it IS a more fair benchmark. Btrfs handles everything as 'raid' even with one disk. Its just the nature of the filesystem, so no matter what it accounts for raid, therefore it IS more fair to benchmark it against similar raid. The REAL benchmark here would be

    ZFS vs Btrfs vs LVM+Ext4 with 2 disks each. That would the the REAL benchmark to see. Also are you really surprised that ZFS beat ext4? ZFS has had the crap optimized out of it. Pretty sure it even keeps the most used parts of the disk in memory rather than writing to disc... (Not the disc cache, actual RAM)

  8. #8
    Join Date
    Oct 2008
    Posts
    3,072

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by stan View Post
    BTRFS apologists love to make excuses as to why BTRFS is slower than EXT4 by claiming that the more numerous features of BTRFS invariably yield slower function on bread-and-butter filesystem tasks. Well, take that! ZFS does more things and is faster than EXT4 at the same time! What excuses will they come up with now??
    You must have missed the part where this test was run on a server with 22 disks. Maybe btrfs would still be slower, or maybe it would be faster. I have no idea, and you don't either.

  9. #9
    Join Date
    Nov 2012
    Posts
    607

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by stan View Post
    BTRFS apologists love to make excuses as to why BTRFS is slower than EXT4 by claiming that the more numerous features of BTRFS invariably yield slower function on bread-and-butter filesystem tasks. Well, take that! ZFS does more things and is faster than EXT4 at the same time! What excuses will they come up with now??
    It seems you've missed the last benchmarks were zfs were just killed by Ext4. There's a big chance btrfs will perform better in benchmark using RAID.

  10. #10
    Join Date
    Apr 2013
    Posts
    1

    Default FS blocks and RAID chunks alignment

    Hi Mickael,
    XFS VS ZFS would be a better starting point for disk benchmarks, ext4 defaults are not so good when it come to data alignment with the RAID chunks.
    XFS is pretty good at getting correct stride and stripe values, while ext4 needs some efforts to specify the block size, stride and stripe_width. It can explain some bad performance on the mdadm implementation.
    HW RAID, is the last test to do because here it is difficult to check blocks/chunks alignments.

    Thank you for your site!

Posting Permissions

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