Home Messages Index
[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next]
Author IndexDate IndexThread Index

[News] New Benchmark: XFS, ext4, ZFS

ZFS, XFS, EXT4 Filesystems Compared

,----[ Quote ]
| EXT4 is fast for metadata operations, tar, untar, cpio, and postmark. EXT4 is 
| much faster than the others under FFSB. EXT4 with hardware RAID and external 
| journal device is ludicrously fast. EXT4 seems to have a bad interaction with 
| software RAID, probably because mkfs fails to query the RAID layout when 
| setting the filesystem parameters.    
| ZFS has excellent performance on metadata tests. ZFS has very bad sequential 
| transfer with hardware RAID and appalling sequential transfer with software 
| RAID. ZFS can copy the linux kernel source code in only 3 seconds! ZFS has 
| equal latency for read and write requests under mixed loads, which is good.   
| XFS has good sequential transfer under Bonnie++. Oddly XFS has better 
| sequential reads when using an external journal, which makes little sense. Is  
| noatime broken on XFS? XFS is very slow on all the metadata tests. XFS takes 
| the RAID layout into consideration and it performs well on randomio with 
| hardware or software RAID.    



OpenSolaris ZFS vs. Linux ext3 RAID5

,----[ Quote ]
| Few overarching conclusions can be drawn from the limited results of this
| study. Certainly, there are situations in which the Solaris/RAID-Z
| configuration appears to outperform the Ubuntu/RAID-5 configuration. Many
| questions remain regarding the large discrepancy in CPU usage for small-file
| operations. Likewise, the Ubuntu/RAID-5 configuration appears to perform
| slightly better in certain situations, though not overwhelmingly so. At best,
| under these default configurations, one can say that overall the Solaris
| configuration performs no worse, and indicates that it might perform better
| under live operating conditions. The latter, though, is largely speculation.


[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next]
Author IndexDate IndexThread Index