Slashdot Mirror
Running ZFS Natively On Linux Slower Than Btrfs
An anonymous reader writes "It's been known that ZFS is coming to Linux in the form of a native kernel module done by the Lawrence Livermore National Laboratory and KQ Infotech. The ZFS module is still in closed testing on KQ infotech's side (but LLNL's ZFS code is publicly available), and now Phoronix has tried out the ZFS file-system on Linux and carried out some tests. ZFS on Linux via this native module is much faster than using ZFS-FUSE, but the Solaris file-system in most areas is not nearly as fast as EXT4, Btrfs, or XFS."
I was confused as to what versions of ZFS were available on which distros so I made a chart that lists the different distros and which version of ZFS they support:
http://petertheobald.blogspot.com/2010/11/101-zfs-capable-operating-systems.html
Hope it's helpful...
- For the complete works of Shakespeare: cat
Which of the ZFS features most impact its performance?
Compression enabled by default can't help (available in btrfs).
Checksum for all blocks probably doesn't help, but definitely helps detect corrupt data/corruption (available in btrfs).
Forcing any file that requires more than a single block to use a tree of block pointers probably doesn't help. The dnode only has one block pointer and the block pointer can only point to a single block (no extents). On the plus side, the block size can vary between 512 bytes and 64 KiB per object, so slack space is kept low. If more than a single block is necessary it creates a tree of block pointers. Each block pointer is 128 bytes in size, so the tree can get deep fairly quick.
Three copies of almost all file system structures (such as inodes, but called dnodes in ZFS) by default can't help (which are compressed of course).
hmmm, well the most obvious feature that ZFS has that Ext4 does not is check summing.
That feature is one reason why ZFS is better (it will tell you if your disk is going bad, and if you have a raid setup, it will go get the good data for you). However, this is also one reason why ZFS is slower... it spends time making sure your data is safe and that it always gives you the correct bits from your disk.
That single feature is why I run FreeBSD (looking forward to kFreeBSD/debian!) on my file server in a mirrored raid configuration. Yes, it is "slower", but I still pull data off that server at over 50MB/sec on my home gigabit lan! The specs on that server aren't great either... 2GB ram, and an old 1.6GHZ single core sempron.
zpool status
That's the command you are looking for. The zfs-fuse lists disks by id which means if you go into /dev/disks/by-id/ and do a ls -al you'll see which devices they are linked to.
It is done this way to make it easier in Linux, in BSD/Solaris the disks are by gpt name (well they were for me) so this keeps it sane.
Hope it helps.
Maq
Um... WTF? Compression is a performance *improvement* and a massive one, at that. The trivial cost in CPU time is offset by the massive reduction in IO time, which is more expensive by far. This has been true since 2000 or even earlier. Modern multi-core CPUs just take the CPU penalty from negligible to nonexistent. Unless your CPU cores are all running at 100%, and possibly even if they are, compression will improve performance.
Note that this is true on a wide variety of filesystems; it's nothing special to these particular ones. Hell, NTFS has had built-in compression for a decade or more. You can improve performance on a Windows system by right-clicking the C: drive and selecting Properties -> Compress this drive. You can do it from the command line using
compact.exe /C /S:C:\ /A
This will compress all files in or under the root of the C drive, including hidden or system files (requires admin, of course) and marks all the directories so that any files written to them will also get compressed.
There's no place I could be, since I've found Serenity...
Half of which's results will be one discussion forum or another where people who are not smug asses thoughtfully took a moment to answer a person's question.
You had time to post this self-important drivel, surely you have time to answer the question as well -- but you elected for the drivel. And you think that somehow says something about the people asking the question rather than about you?