[Top] [All Lists]

Re: [zfs-discuss] ZFS, XFS, and EXT4 compared

To: "Jeffrey W. Baker" <jwbaker@xxxxxxx>
Subject: Re: [zfs-discuss] ZFS, XFS, and EXT4 compared
From: "Cyril Plisko" <cyril.plisko@xxxxxxxxxxxx>
Date: Thu, 30 Aug 2007 09:25:04 +0300
Cc: zfs-discuss@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx, xfs@xxxxxxxxxxx, linux-ext4@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
Dkim-signature: a=rsa-sha1; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=beta; h=domainkey-signature:received:received:message-id:date:from:sender:to:subject:cc:in-reply-to:mime-version:content-type:content-transfer-encoding:content-disposition:references:x-google-sender-auth; b=s+WfQLKgbcC8mc9hUeWO2IoT2dPLAzyZ6zNqY52Cg5q3RHWLcgJeF9MteU4MmcdPU7kC6sm33Z1yRjQDTJnmDSmi4TRdTENEKNFm/cHwiMt6IPFnV2ohJGBY3etyhhIxo1pjM6fvXvpUP+krTnK45re8q1wr2YzYiti+2fs3zV0=
Domainkey-signature: a=rsa-sha1; c=nofws; d=gmail.com; s=beta; h=received:message-id:date:from:sender:to:subject:cc:in-reply-to:mime-version:content-type:content-transfer-encoding:content-disposition:references:x-google-sender-auth; b=m2wUnPxJFHv1XWc0WqfS+VJYsPy8iD7+9y9/O9MCMhDlhMuqL6iFlKo7qo+gwWGfhOOl+S+oQ6zjMpwqDwCoRIXEqE3X850v8pVanuQJwHrZfpBfEU/ct5bt8Q+LYkHUM4PPcAi79fgtcahcXIB2HwWTUFNz159t6txACloKnN0=
In-reply-to: <1188454611.23311.13.camel@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
References: <1188454611.23311.13.camel@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
Sender: xfs-bounce@xxxxxxxxxxx

it would be interesting to see your zpool layout info as well.
It can significantly influence the results obtained in the benchmarks.

On 8/30/07, Jeffrey W. Baker <jwbaker@xxxxxxx> wrote:
> I have a lot of people whispering "zfs" in my virtual ear these days,
> and at the same time I have an irrational attachment to xfs based
> entirely on its lack of the 32000 subdirectory limit.  I'm not afraid of
> ext4's newness, since really a lot of that stuff has been in Lustre for
> years.  So a-benchmarking I went.  Results at the bottom:
> http://tastic.brillig.org/~jwb/zfs-xfs-ext4.html
> Short version: ext4 is awesome.  zfs has absurdly fast metadata
> operations but falls apart on sequential transfer.  xfs has great
> sequential transfer but really bad metadata ops, like 3 minutes to tar
> up the kernel.
> It would be nice if mke2fs would copy xfs's code for optimal layout on a
> software raid.  The mkfs defaults and the mdadm defaults interact badly.
> Postmark is somewhat bogus benchmark with some obvious quantization
> problems.
> Regards,
> jwb
> _______________________________________________
> zfs-discuss mailing list
> zfs-discuss@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
> http://mail.opensolaris.org/mailman/listinfo/zfs-discuss


<Prev in Thread] Current Thread [Next in Thread>