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.

Reply via email to