From: "Cyril Plisko" Subject: Re: ZFS, XFS, and EXT4 compared Date: Thu, 30 Aug 2007 09:25:04 +0300 Message-ID: References: <1188454611.23311.13.camel@toonses.gghcwest.com> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Cc: zfs-discuss@opensolaris.org, linux-ext4@vger.kernel.org, xfs@oss.sgi.com To: "Jeffrey W. Baker" Return-path: In-Reply-To: <1188454611.23311.13.camel@toonses.gghcwest.com> Content-Disposition: inline List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , Sender: zfs-discuss-bounces@opensolaris.org Errors-To: zfs-discuss-bounces@opensolaris.org List-Id: linux-ext4.vger.kernel.org Jeffrey, 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 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@opensolaris.org > http://mail.opensolaris.org/mailman/listinfo/zfs-discuss > -- Regards, Cyril