> ZFS also has "general lackluster performance" in areas like using memory (it requires tons of it). It's inherent in the design of a copy-on-write filesystem.

> ZFS also has "general lackluster performance" in areas like using memory (it requires tons of it). It's inherent in the design of a copy-on-write filesystem. Those benchmarks aren't about CPU or memory consumption. These days a good filesystem probably should trade memory and CPU for increased performance. Those benchmarks are about throughput/latency. > Just the same way as running Apache with all the bells and whistles is not going to be as fast as ngnix. ...except ZFS generally performs very well as compared to other filesystems. When it first came out it had all kinds of ugly corner cases where it performed poorly, but it seems to do great these days.