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
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
> 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.
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/groups/opt_out.