On 9/6/07, Andrew Lentvorski <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > James G. Sack (jim) wrote: > > from LWN, a link to > > Jeffrey W. Baker: ZFS, XFS, and EXT4 compared. (September 5, 2007) > > http://lwn.net/Articles/247811/ > > which links to the actual data, but I will quote his summary: > > > > """ > > Short version: ext4 is awesome. zfs has absurdly fast metadata > > operations but falls apart on sequential transfer. > > That's too strong a statement given the data. Or, at least, he should > say, "ext4 falls apart on metadata operations" given that the gap is > about the same in reverse. > > I'm going to completely ignore the hardware RAID specs. They are > uninteresting, IMO. If I'm using ZFS, I'm using it to *avoid* hardware > RAID. > > Comparing the software implementations, ZFS holds at about a factor of 2 > slower than ext4 (is ext4 checksumming data like ZFS?) for sequential > operations. ext4 holds at about a factor of 2 slower than ZFS for > random operations. > > And ZFS kicks the stuffing out of xfs for the Postmark benchmark from > NetApp (factors of *5* in places). > > The multithreaded data is nice, but I generally worry about those kind > of benchmarks since they often are limited by things other than the > actual performance of the filesystem. > > So, in short, ZFS is optimized for random operations; ext4 for > sequential ones. > > Given that Sun's customers tend to be database folks, that's not > unsurprising. > > So, if you're compiling lots of stuff, you want ZFS. If you are doing > lots of video editing, you probably want EXT4. > > Personally, I'll take ZFS. It matches my usage patterns better *and* > actually gets compliance tested by Sun. > > As always, YMMV, > -a
Thanks Andy. I was laying back waiting for your comments expecting that they would elucidate an amplify the data as always. BobLQ -- [email protected] http://www.kernel-panic.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/kplug-list
