Can you provide a URL for some discussion of this? Jerry McAllister. Derek Buttineau. Adam Vande More. Giorgos Keramidas. Pieter de Goeje. I dont see it being an issue with NIC drivers they are not vastly different. To get the rest of the speed, I'd probably have to install a pci-e card on the server.
I do suspect personally that the ext4 filesystem is the reason for the difference here, since ext4 has a number of features such as deferred disk writes etc. Post by alex Even deleting a large file off that raid array I can see a difference, prior to reformatting, i deleted a GB file off the raid, under UFS the delete took quite some time well over 10 seconds , under ext4 the deletion of the same size file took about 3 seconds.
Post by alex But what I said with ext4 being faster then the aging UFS still rings true in my mind, look at the recent Phoronix benchmarks for yourself and see 10 pages of benchmarks.
Post by Pieter de Goeje Post by alex Even deleting a large file off that raid array I can see a difference, prior to reformatting, i deleted a GB file off the raid, under UFS the delete took quite some time well over 10 seconds , under ext4 the deletion of the same size file took about 3 seconds.
Post by alex I do suspect personally that the ext4 filesystem is the reason for the difference here, since ext4 has a number of features such as deferred disk writes etc.
Even deleting a large file off that raid array I can see a difference, prior to reformatting, i deleted a GB file off the raid, under UFS the delete took quite some time well over 10 seconds , under ext4 the deletion of the same size file took about 3 seconds.
But what I said with ext4 being faster then the aging UFS still rings true in my mind, look at the recent Phoronix benchmarks for yourself and see 10 pages of benchmarks. Post by alex Post by alex I do suspect personally that the ext4 filesystem is the reason for the difference here, since ext4 has a number of features such as deferred.
Zanchey Zanchey 3, 19 19 silver badges 28 28 bronze badges. I would expect that number to vary based on the type of filesystem involved as well. How can I tell which filesystem is in use? Freebsd installs typically use ffs for their filesystems unless you're doing something exotic or mounting an alien filesystem. The exception is zfs, which is not likely to be used on 6.
Is there a way to tell specifically? Added ufs to question. Sign up or log in Sign up using Google. Sign up using Facebook. Sign up using Email and Password. Post as a guest Name.
Email Required, but never shown. The Overflow Blog. Stack Gives Back Safety in numbers: crowdsourcing data on nefarious IP addresses. Featured on Meta. New post summary designs on greatest hits now, everywhere else eventually. Related 2. Hot Network Questions. Question feed. Server Fault works best with JavaScript enabled. Click to expand I use only UFS in my servers.
Zirias Son of Beastie Reaction score: 1, Messages: 2, SirDice said:. There's absolutely nothing wrong with UFS.
Zirias said:. What some of us are trying to say is that a lot are jumping on the ZFS bandwagon because it's like the latest buzzword and not for technical reasons.
Not that ZFS is not worthy--it is--but using it should be a technical decision, not a headline popular one. Alain De Vos said:. I'm a ZFS noob , but I cannot see any reason to restrict vfs. The reason is in practice, ARC is somewhat "reluctant" with returning memory, and this can impair performance of other things.
For the purposes of this performance test, a comparison with zfs send would have been more appropriate, because that is the ZFS-native implementation of what tar 1 , star 1 and dump 8 are used for here and can additionally profit from built-in compression, deduplication and snapshot management.
Note that zfs send despite the somewhat confusing name does not require an actively listening receiver, it is perfectly suitable for writing backups to offline tape and restoring them much later, even on different machines or operating systems as long as they have sufficiently modern ZFS support.
I did use UFS for some time. ZFS' data integrity is a fantastic feature. It's not important if you have ephemeral data, but if you do it's great. It was something like 1,, on all of the servers.
Drives do get bit flips of one kind or the other and even with traditional raid 1, you don't know which drive is right. With ZFS, you do, and the scrubbing functionaliy is fantastic.
Admittedly, ZFS is like the systemd of filesystems. I've used systemd pretty extensively. Enough to admit, even erring on the side of old school, that it has a lot of useful features.
Now unlike systemd, ZFS seems to strike the balance much better. And if you're using say Debian with a slow release cycle, the fixes you need to systemd won't make it in for another year or more.
Now you could roll your own, but it's getting dicey at that point. I'd argue that the adhoc init system, logging, etc, of say FreeBSD has fewer shortcomings than systemd. And systemd has a massive learning curve.
Yet ZFS, even though it is pretty big, does work very well. Now, for performance. I haven't benchmarked the two side by side. ZFS definitely seems more forgiving about power loss. ZFS has its own learning curve separate from standard Unix-y tools. But, it seems to be worth it. Performance isn't great, but it's fine for my purposes and it never crashes. I have had issues with the ARC before. It's probably the biggest pain point ZFS users have.
But I think it can be tuned and worked with. Of all things about ZFS, that's probably the one I'd like to see improved the most. I can do incremental differential dumps that are pretty quick with ZFS. UFS is fantastic in many ways for what it is. Soft updates is a marvel.
0コメント