for anyone interested in zfs and considering zfs-fuse on linux, here are
some numbers
CPU e8400 3Ghz Dual Core.
single 7200rpm 16MB cache 200GB maxtor drive.
ubuntu 7.10
ZFS-fuse utilizes 1 core per process / not multithreaded, other filesystems
never used enough CPU to matter. ZFS hammered the CPU(1 core anyway).
FILE COUNT
138581 634MB average of 4.68KB per file(coped the /etc directory 20 times)
*=fastest or acceptable
find all files and run 'wc -l'(access speed) (wow zfs-fuse is slow here)
zfs compression=gzip 9.688 sec
zfs compression=off 10.734 sec
*ext3 .3218 sec
*reiserfs .431 sec
jfs 36.18 sec
*xfs .310 sec
copy from RAM to disk(/dev/shm -> partition w/ filesystem. bus speed not a
factor)
issues:jfs and xfs both did write caching and then spent periods catching
up.
ext3 1m13s 8.68MB/s
jfs 3m21s 3.15MB/s
*reiserfs 20s 31.7MB/s (WOW!)
xfs 2m56s 3.60MB/s
zfs (CPU bound) 2m22.76s 4.44MB/s
in my tests, reiserfs with noatime is the absolute fastest filesystem
available on linux for small file writes. the test files were the /etc
directory on ubuntu 7.10 and the average filesize was 4k. this should be
reasonably close to directory and link creation.
zfs was VERY slow in at just reading the files on the disk, COMPLETELY CPU
BOUND. In fact, In all tests, ZFS used 1 core up completely but could not
use the other as the fuse implementation is not multi-threaded.
I am quite impressed with zfs coming in a reasonable 3rd in the copy tests.
the cpu was pegged so im sure improved fuse code would improve that. what i
did notice is that fuse seems to be VERY slow at alocating memory, which is
why the find command took so much time. rsync speeds seemed to suffer a lot
because of that, results not included as they were very nearly the same as
cp on all the other filesystems(rsync was just used at to copy, not update
files) jfs was very dissapointing, it performed very poorly being beaten
out by a fuse filesystem. xfs is ok but the only obvious choices for linux
are reiserfs and ext3. zfs-fuse needs a lot of optimisation before i can be
in the same league as reiserfs and ext3 on speed ON LINUX.
on freebsd, ZFS roasts everything else I have tested. on freebsd i only
tested UFS and ZFS but the ZFS numbers were much higher than anything on my
linux tests except the 20second resierfs small file writes, ZFS came in
around a hypothetical 40seconds but i did not have as many files so that is
extrapolation.
also notice that when enabling compression i go better performance? well,
zfs launches another process for gzip, which uses the other cpu core! so a
little bit less data was read off the disk giving a small improvement. this
is not the case on freebsd, zfs is multithreaded on freebsd and it also does
not use nearly as much CPU on freebsd, something like 8-10% in my tests on
this hardware.
I am just learning freebsd and dont have backuppc working on it yet, i need
some help or a guide, or better yet and backuppc port for freebsd!
hope someone finds this helpful
thanks
-dan
-------------------------------------------------------------------------
This SF.net email is sponsored by: Microsoft
Defy all challenges. Microsoft(R) Visual Studio 2008.
http://clk.atdmt.com/MRT/go/vse0120000070mrt/direct/01/
_______________________________________________
BackupPC-users mailing list
[email protected]
List: https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/backuppc-users
Wiki: http://backuppc.wiki.sourceforge.net
Project: http://backuppc.sourceforge.net/
