Page 1 of 3 123 LastLast
Results 1 to 10 of 24

Thread: ZFS File-System Tests On The Linux 3.10 Kernel

  1. #1
    Join Date
    Jan 2007
    Posts
    15,678

    Default ZFS File-System Tests On The Linux 3.10 Kernel

    Phoronix: ZFS File-System Tests On The Linux 3.10 Kernel

    Using the latest ZFS On Linux support, the ZFS file-system was benchmarked from the Linux 3.10 stable kernel and compared to the Linux file-system competition...

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

  2. #2
    Join Date
    May 2012
    Posts
    946

    Default

    Back in like 2008 it was a big deal, now ZFS is pretty much irrelevant.

  3. #3
    Join Date
    Oct 2010
    Posts
    93

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by phoronix View Post
    Phoronix: ZFS File-System Tests On The Linux 3.10 Kernel

    Using the latest ZFS On Linux support, the ZFS file-system was benchmarked from the Linux 3.10 stable kernel and compared to the Linux file-system competition...

    http://www.phoronix.com/vr.php?view=MTQyNzk
    it strikes me that these benchmarks look pretty synthetic, do you have any idea if there's some way to test something more akin to real usage performance? i've been playing with zfs and lz4 compression on ssd, and i compared zfs and md/ext4 for zfs, and i noticed that zfs cpu usage can be pretty high, and performance is generally lower, but in real use a lot of difference seems to disappear, and lz4 compression is nice

  4. #4
    Join Date
    Oct 2010
    Posts
    93

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by mark45 View Post
    Back in like 2008 it was a big deal, now ZFS is pretty much irrelevant.
    btrfs is still buggy and runs out of disk space when there is still free disk easily on small partitions (like on ssd)

    lvm's snapshotting isn't great

    zfs is a bit "big", and a bit slow but it's stable and does tend to work pretty well.

    the zfs snapshotting and zfs send / zfs recv is great. it has lz4 compression as option now, it's having forward momentum.

  5. #5
    Join Date
    May 2011
    Posts
    1,615

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by mark45 View Post
    Back in like 2008 it was a big deal, now ZFS is pretty much irrelevant.
    Let us know when there's something equivalent in Linux.

  6. #6
    Join Date
    Jun 2010
    Posts
    74

    Default

    I have been using ZFS(freebsd) on a few servers at home and work for about 2 years.
    I enjoy working with it and it has saved my butt a few times.

  7. #7
    Join Date
    Oct 2008
    Posts
    3,248

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by johnc View Post
    Let us know when there's something equivalent in Linux.
    You mean like this ZFS on Linux test? I guess we should let you know now.

  8. #8
    Join Date
    Jan 2012
    Posts
    59

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by smitty3268 View Post
    You mean like this ZFS on Linux test? I guess we should let you know now.
    Which exactly proves the point that ZFS is still most definitely relevant, since there are no viable competitors on Linux.

    Seriously, the Phoronix forums are worse than YouTube comments, which is pretty sad.

  9. #9
    Join Date
    Oct 2012
    Posts
    148

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by mercutio View Post
    btrfs is still buggy and runs out of disk space when there is still free disk easily on small partitions (like on ssd)

    lvm's snapshotting isn't great

    zfs is a bit "big", and a bit slow but it's stable and does tend to work pretty well.

    the zfs snapshotting and zfs send / zfs recv is great. it has lz4 compression as option now, it's having forward momentum.
    The btrfs handling of free space is still a bit problematic (a bit, as in if you really work on it, you can still cause situation where you need to manually clean journal), but if you use mixed allocation trees then you can pretty much use the space up to last cluster for storing data. So if you really care for that, you can. Of course you will pay for that in performance (I have no idea by how much). For very small volumes mkfs.btrfs does that automatically anyway, so you should be OK with newly created file systems.

    btrfs have had send/recv functionality for, I think, 2 kernel releases. lz4 shouldn't be too hard to add to btrfs too...

    Quote Originally Posted by pdffs
    Which exactly proves the point that ZFS is still most definitely relevant, since there are no viable competitors on Linux.

    Seriously, the Phoronix forums are worse than YouTube comments, which is pretty sad.
    Oh, Please! Shine on our unworthy minds, pdffs, You forever brilliant beacon of knowledge and enlightenment!

  10. #10
    Join Date
    Apr 2011
    Posts
    20

    Lightbulb keep up the good work!

    Quote Originally Posted by pdffs View Post
    Which exactly proves the point that ZFS is still most definitely relevant, since there are no viable competitors on Linux.

    Seriously, the Phoronix forums are worse than YouTube comments, which is pretty sad.
    So, why don't you say something relevant and worthy. If you have nothing to say why not fuck off!

    I believe phoronix has started not as that much expert in the field of benchmarking and reviewing at least like Anandtech. But they care enough to improve and it is one of the top 10 sites I wont miss reading their articles. I think with more help from the community, phoronix will become defacto standard of benchmarking/reviewing open source world.

Posting Permissions

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