Message-ID: <c7dddeaa0708292325l4006775aq827b80117048638@mail.gmail.com>
Date:	Thu, 30 Aug 2007 09:25:04 +0300
From:	"Cyril Plisko" <cyril.plisko@...ntall.com>
To:	"Jeffrey W. Baker" <jwbaker@....org>
Cc:	zfs-discuss@...nsolaris.org, xfs@....sgi.com,
	linux-ext4@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [zfs-discuss] ZFS, XFS, and EXT4 compared

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 <jwbaker@....org> 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@...nsolaris.org
> http://mail.opensolaris.org/mailman/listinfo/zfs-discuss
>


-- 
Regards,
        Cyril
-
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-ext4" in
the body of a message to majordomo@...r.kernel.org
More majordomo info at  http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html

Powered by blists - more mailing lists