I don't remember anyone ever saying that ZFS was fast. In fact it's a resource hog, and quite cumbersome. It is flexible and safe.
Your test is equivalent to saying that it's much easier to walk around with money in a paper bag than in a reinforced steel security carrier case. (BTW, speaking of integrity, raid10 is nothing to write home about. It was a surprise to me as well, but no raid configuration protects against silent data corruption. The redundant raid configs were designed to protect from drive failure.) On Sunday, October 27, 2013 6:50:49 PM UTC-4, Roman Kunz wrote: > > I was playing around on Maverick with various FS setups. 4x 2TB drives in > raidz, raid10 (hfs+/zfs) and it seems raid10 hfs+ outperformes all other > setup by at least 80%. > Zfs comp disabled, 128k blocks, only large data gets moved. Arc cache > doesn't really kick in as most is write once / read once. Am I missing any > tuneables? > > I don't really want to use hfs+ again but having on a simple stripe test > 2x 2TB read/write with zfs ~120MB/150MB i get with hfs ~200MB/250MB. > > -Roman > > -- --- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "zfs-macos" group. To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to zfs-macos+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/groups/opt_out.
