linux-ext4 - ZFS, XFS, and EXT4 compared

lists.openwall.net		lists / announce owl-users owl-dev john-users john-dev passwdqc-users yescrypt popa3d-users / oss-security kernel-hardening musl sabotage tlsify passwords / crypt-dev xvendor / Bugtraq Full-Disclosure linux-kernel linux-netdev linux-ext4 linux-hardening linux-cve-announce PHC
Open Source and information security mailing list archives

Hash Suite: Windows password security audit tool. GUI, reports in PDF.

[<prev] [next>] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]

Date:	Wed, 29 Aug 2007 23:16:51 -0700
From:	"Jeffrey W. Baker" <jwbaker@....org>
To:	zfs-discuss@...nsolaris.org, xfs@....sgi.com,
	linux-ext4@...r.kernel.org
Subject: ZFS, XFS, and EXT4 compared

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

-
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