5 ms·
The point to take away from this is the entirely unsurprising conclusion that locally-attached unthrottled ephemeral disk has higher throughput than network-att
by skywhopper 8y ago
The point to take away from this is the entirely unsurprising conclusion that locally-attached unthrottled ephemeral disk has higher throughput than network-attached IOPS-throttled EBS. So yeah, sure, if you take the time to pre-cache all your EBS-stored data onto the local ephemeral drive and only do reads from the cache, then you will get more query throughput on the local ephemeral drive than on the remote EBS drive. But I'm not sure what that is supposed to tell us about ZFS or XFS.
- boomboomsubban 8y agoThe post is to explain how ZFS functions, and how you can tune it for your best performance. The author notes that the benchmarks are not fair, they are there to show how much improvement you could potentially gain from tuning ZFS. The title is "About ZFS performance," not "An in depth comparison of ZFS and XFS."
- barrkel 8y agoPart of the point is that you can easily take advantage of that fast local storage to add transparent caching to a database that is otherwise unaware of it.