3 ms·

Its weird they didn't test with ZFS, UFS/FFS or ReiserFS.

• kbenson 5y ago
  > Its weird they didn't test with ZFS Maybe because of the numerous ways if can be configured that might affect results. ZFS is not as simple as Ext4 or XFS in configuration, and it might have just made it harder to get useful information from the results. At the same time, someone can probably use the results here to make some educated guesses as to how ZFS can/should be configured for SSDs based on this and some knowledge of SSDs. > UFS/FFS The purpose isn't to test filesystems, it's to figure out how to best leverage SSDs specific performance and design characteristics for both immediate and long term performance. > or ReiserFS Uh, is ReiserFS still actively developed? I used to follow it quite actively, but I admit I sort of lost interest after it seemed to stall after Han Reiser's murder conviction.
  • bifrost 5y ago
    RE: ZFS - Testing with modern filesystems should be a key point for benchmarking and "getting the most out of a device". Because ZFS contains both logical volume management and a variety of other safety/speed controls it really should've been included. RE: UFS/FFS - These perform quite well with SSDs and in various configurations will outperform ext4/etc in terms of sheer write/read performance and also data safety.