Jeffrey, it would be interesting to see your zpool layout info as well. It can significantly influence the results obtained in the benchmarks.
On 8/30/07, Jeffrey W. Baker <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > 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 > > _______________________________________________ > zfs-discuss mailing list > zfs-discuss@opensolaris.org > http://mail.opensolaris.org/mailman/listinfo/zfs-discuss > -- Regards, Cyril _______________________________________________ zfs-discuss mailing list zfs-discuss@opensolaris.org http://mail.opensolaris.org/mailman/listinfo/zfs-discuss
