On 9/15/2014 14:48, Andrew Holway wrote:
Any comparison between ZFS and non-ZFS probably overlooks things like
fully-checksummed data (not just metadata) and redundant copies. ZFS will
always be slower than filesystems without these features. TANSTAAFL.
Not really true. It hugely depends on your workload. For example, if you
have a 20TB filesystem with 128GB of "ARC" (adaptive replacement cache)
then ZFS will be many many times faster then ext4 assuming that the "hot
data" is under 128GB as all reads will come from memory or a dedicated
cache SSD. If however you are streaming the whole 20TB from the filesystem
then the cache makes no difference and you just see the performance of the
disks. The checksumming for example does not typically add a performance
penalty as this calculation is done in parallel to normal disk operations.
The SSD and second CPU core are not free.
ZFS does more than pretty much every other mainstream filesystem, and
hence needs more resources when you use its additional features.
My only point is that there are people who will compare a ZFS pool with
all the features turned on to a bare-bones ext4 setup, then complain
that ZFS is "slow."
The atomistic write mechanism of ZFS can be hundreds of times faster than
EXT in cases where your IO is random SYNC assuming you have a dedicated ZIL
(ZFS intent log) which keeps the journal. Read up on ZFS transaction groups
for more details.
The "ZFS is slow" crowd generally doesn't care about reliable fsyncs.
Hence why most PC OSes lie through their teeth when you tell them to
sync a block to disk:
http://queue.acm.org/detail.cfm?id=2367378
_______________________________________________
CentOS mailing list
CentOS@centos.org
http://lists.centos.org/mailman/listinfo/centos
