[lkml]   [2007]   [Apr]   [16]   [last100]   RSS Feed
Views: [wrap][no wrap]   [headers]  [forward] 
Messages in this thread
    SubjectRe: ZFS with Linux: An Open Plea
    On Mon, 16 April 2007 17:46:50 +0200, Tomasz Kłoczko wrote:
    > On Mon, 16 Apr 2007, Christoph Hellwig wrote:
    > >Numbers, please. So far in all interesting benchmarks it actually
    > >was slower. But when they're faster than XFS somewhere I'd defintly
    > >be interesting in looking at why this is true and if possible and
    > >important enough fix it.

    Christoph, could you show some numbers as well? While I usually trust
    your opinion, I have yet to see any substantial argument against ZFS
    from your side.


    If you read closely you may notice that ZFS had relatively little to do
    with read performance under heavy write load. ZFS simply has "some fancy
    I/O scheduling code" that in particular deals with deadlines. The Linux
    equivalent appears to be CONFIG_IOSCHED_DEADLINE. But the quoted
    benchmark does not mention which scheduler was used for Linux.

    So unless the benchmark is redone and properly documented, its numbers
    are fairly worthless. Bummer.


    "The company I work for would probably balk if I put that script here"

    No publically available benchmark. So even if a third party wanted to,
    it couldn't recreate the benchmark. Again, fairly worthless.

    So by my count, neither side has showed any worthwile numbers. Whether
    ZFS performance is better or worse is anyone's guess.


    Simplicity is prerequisite for reliability.
    -- Edsger W. Dijkstra
    To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
    the body of a message to
    More majordomo info at
    Please read the FAQ at

     \ /
      Last update: 2007-04-16 21:55    [W:0.020 / U:26.616 seconds]
    ©2003-2016 Jasper Spaans. hosted at Digital OceanAdvertise on this site