User: Password:
|
|
Subscribe / Log in / New account

ZFS, XFS, and EXT4 compared

From:  "Jeffrey W. Baker" <jwbaker@acm.org>
To:  zfs-discuss@opensolaris.org, xfs@oss.sgi.com, linux-ext4@vger.kernel.org
Subject:  ZFS, XFS, and EXT4 compared
Date:  Wed, 29 Aug 2007 23:16:51 -0700
Archive-link:  Article, Thread

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


Copyright © 2007, Eklektix, Inc.
Comments and public postings are copyrighted by their creators.
Linux is a registered trademark of Linus Torvalds