|From:||"Jeffrey W. Baker" <email@example.com>|
|To:||firstname.lastname@example.org, email@example.com, firstname.lastname@example.org|
|Subject:||ZFS, XFS, and EXT4 compared|
|Date:||Wed, 29 Aug 2007 23:16:51 -0700|
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