Phoronix comparision of HAMMER, UFS, ZFS, EXT3, EXT4, Btrfs
Bruce Cran
bruce at cran.org.uk
Mon Jan 10 13:07:09 UTC 2011
- Previous message: Phoronix comparision of HAMMER, UFS, ZFS, EXT3, EXT4, Btrfs
- Next message: Phoronix comparision of HAMMER, UFS, ZFS, EXT3, EXT4, Btrfs
- Messages sorted by:
[ date ]
[ thread ]
[ subject ]
[ author ]
On Mon, 10 Jan 2011 13:49:08 +0100
Ivan Voras <ivoras at freebsd.org> wrote:
> It depends - since ZFS is logging all the time it doesn't have to
> seek as much; if all transactions are WRITE and given sequentially,
> they will be written to the drive sequentially, even with full fsync
> semantics. But 75k IOPS is a bit too much :)
I've been doing some benchmarking using sysutils/fio recently. It seems
that for my desktop SATA disk (a Samsung F3) around 28-30k iops is about
the maximum, seen both on Windows 7 (NTFS) and FreeBSD (ZFS).
FreeBSD is much more bursty compared to Windows, getting 80k iops and
210MB/s for a few seconds followed by several of 0.
--
Bruce Cran
- Previous message: Phoronix comparision of HAMMER, UFS, ZFS, EXT3, EXT4, Btrfs
- Next message: Phoronix comparision of HAMMER, UFS, ZFS, EXT3, EXT4, Btrfs
- Messages sorted by:
[ date ]
[ thread ]
[ subject ]
[ author ]
More information about the freebsd-performance
mailing list