4 ms·

One of those is an 8 year old benchmark, the other used a 9.6TB flash array so hardly a realistic storage platform. I'm not saying that ZFS performance is awful

One of those is an 8 year old benchmark, the other used a 9.6TB flash array so hardly a realistic storage platform. I'm not saying that ZFS performance is awful, just that other features like data protection come first. If you're hoping for some salvation from btrfs you might be waiting a while. Of course they're both developed by the same company now! Here's a benchmark from 2013 with most results showing that it has worse performance on Linux than XFS and EXT4: http://www.phoronix.com/scan.php?page=article&item=zfs_linux_062&num=1 http://www.phoronix.com/scan.php?page=article&item=zfs_linux...

ryao 12y ago
Oracle has nothing to do with the Open ZFS community these days. As for the benchmarks you cite, there are several key problems: 1. You say that they show ZFS having worse performance than XFS and ext4, but XFS is not in those benchmarks and the FIO tester shows ZFS as outperforming its competition by a significant margin. 2. They use a single disk. No server does this and while desktops and laptops do this, it is not clear how the benchmarks are of any relevance there. Additionally, LZ4 compression is not in use, when practically everyone deploying ZFSOnLinux would configure it to use LZ4. 3. ext4 manages to perform better than the theoretical limit of the SATA II interface and there is no discussion as to why. 4. ZFSOnLinux 0.6.2 is an old release. The most recent 0.6.3 release includes a new IO elevator and other improvements that enable ZFSOnLinux 0.6.3 to outperform its precedessor by a significant margin in many workloads. Would you post something constructive that you actually did yourself? I am beginning to think that you have never even used ZFS.