Comments on: XFS, JFS and ZFS/FUSE Benchmarks on Ubuntu Feisty Fawn http://www.csamuel.org/2007/03/25/xfs-jfs-and-zfsfuse-benchmarks-on-ubuntu-feisty-fawn The Thoughts and Feelings of a Melbourne Person Fri, 05 Mar 2010 20:34:51 +0000 http://wordpress.org/?v=2.9.2 hourly 1 By: The Musings of Chris Samuel » Blog Archive » ZFS-FUSE Bonnie++ benchmark update http://www.csamuel.org/2007/03/25/xfs-jfs-and-zfsfuse-benchmarks-on-ubuntu-feisty-fawn/comment-page-1#comment-19084 The Musings of Chris Samuel » Blog Archive » ZFS-FUSE Bonnie++ benchmark update Tue, 25 Mar 2008 11:12:02 +0000 http://www.csamuel.org/2007/03/25/xfs-jfs-and-zfsfuse-benchmarks-on-ubuntu-feisty-fawn/#comment-19084 [...] created a 30GB LVM volume for testing and gave it a go. Now you can’t compare it to previous results as this is completely different hardware, but the numbers look quite respectable in comparison to [...] [...] created a 30GB LVM volume for testing and gave it a go. Now you can’t compare it to previous results as this is completely different hardware, but the numbers look quite respectable in comparison to [...]

]]> By: Geek Drivel » Blog Archive » Secure Remote Backups, Part III http://www.csamuel.org/2007/03/25/xfs-jfs-and-zfsfuse-benchmarks-on-ubuntu-feisty-fawn/comment-page-1#comment-13542 Geek Drivel » Blog Archive » Secure Remote Backups, Part III Tue, 04 Dec 2007 19:41:57 +0000 http://www.csamuel.org/2007/03/25/xfs-jfs-and-zfsfuse-benchmarks-on-ubuntu-feisty-fawn/#comment-13542 [...] There are two drawbacks to it, though. It’s still comparatively slow on Linux, and on-disk encryption (an absolute requirement for my purposes) is still in an unusable alpha stage. However, the speed difference isn’t much of an issue for me… it’s not all that noticeable, and the network is the bottleneck in my application so the speed doesn’t make much difference here. And I’ve gotten around the encryption problem using the same method as in part II of this series, by using encrypted loop-mounted devices on the network drive — that likely has a detrimental effect on both the speed and the reliability, but I believe it’s still a lot better with ZFS than without it. [...] [...] There are two drawbacks to it, though. It’s still comparatively slow on Linux, and on-disk encryption (an absolute requirement for my purposes) is still in an unusable alpha stage. However, the speed difference isn’t much of an issue for me… it’s not all that noticeable, and the network is the bottleneck in my application so the speed doesn’t make much difference here. And I’ve gotten around the encryption problem using the same method as in part II of this series, by using encrypted loop-mounted devices on the network drive — that likely has a detrimental effect on both the speed and the reliability, but I believe it’s still a lot better with ZFS than without it. [...]

]]> By: ZFS on Linux - Freedom can be so restrictive « ☠ I could not think of a blog title ☠ http://www.csamuel.org/2007/03/25/xfs-jfs-and-zfsfuse-benchmarks-on-ubuntu-feisty-fawn/comment-page-1#comment-7573 ZFS on Linux - Freedom can be so restrictive « ☠ I could not think of a blog title ☠ Sat, 09 Jun 2007 16:56:35 +0000 http://www.csamuel.org/2007/03/25/xfs-jfs-and-zfsfuse-benchmarks-on-ubuntu-feisty-fawn/#comment-7573 [...] There is ZFS on FUSE that allows you to use it on Linux, but FUSE is slower than a real file systems (Benchmarks here) and it is much harder to setup so you can boot from it as it must load the programs that access the hard drive from somewhere. dpkg also requires a patch for systems using Debian apt. [...] [...] There is ZFS on FUSE that allows you to use it on Linux, but FUSE is slower than a real file systems (Benchmarks here) and it is much harder to setup so you can boot from it as it must load the programs that access the hard drive from somewhere. dpkg also requires a patch for systems using Debian apt. [...]

]]> By: ossblog http://www.csamuel.org/2007/03/25/xfs-jfs-and-zfsfuse-benchmarks-on-ubuntu-feisty-fawn/comment-page-1#comment-7352 ossblog Sun, 06 May 2007 15:38:01 +0000 http://www.csamuel.org/2007/03/25/xfs-jfs-and-zfsfuse-benchmarks-on-ubuntu-feisty-fawn/#comment-7352 <strong>Usare ZFS su Linux grazie a FUSE...</strong> Di ZFS ne abbiamo già parlato altre volte, soprattutto in relazione ai porting sui sistemi operativi differenti da Solaris: gli sviluppatori di FreeBSD sono già al lavoro da un pò di tempo, quelli di NetBSD hanno appena cominciato e quelli Linux&#8... Usare ZFS su Linux grazie a FUSE…

Di ZFS ne abbiamo già parlato altre volte, soprattutto in relazione ai porting sui sistemi operativi differenti da Solaris: gli sviluppatori di FreeBSD sono già al lavoro da un pò di tempo, quelli di NetBSD hanno appena cominciato e quelli Linux&#8…

]]> By: EndelWar’s Blog » Quando ne saprò qualcosa, te lo farò sapere. » ZFS su Linux? certo che sì! http://www.csamuel.org/2007/03/25/xfs-jfs-and-zfsfuse-benchmarks-on-ubuntu-feisty-fawn/comment-page-1#comment-7293 EndelWar’s Blog » Quando ne saprò qualcosa, te lo farò sapere. » ZFS su Linux? certo che sì! Fri, 27 Apr 2007 08:15:32 +0000 http://www.csamuel.org/2007/03/25/xfs-jfs-and-zfsfuse-benchmarks-on-ubuntu-feisty-fawn/#comment-7293 [...] Mi sembra strano che l’autore del post abbia tralasciato l’implementazione di ZFS tramite FUSE, disponibile a questo link, e che, a quanto si legge in giro, questa soluzione è stabile e veloce, quasi come un FS nativo nel kernel. [...] [...] Mi sembra strano che l’autore del post abbia tralasciato l’implementazione di ZFS tramite FUSE, disponibile a questo link, e che, a quanto si legge in giro, questa soluzione è stabile e veloce, quasi come un FS nativo nel kernel. [...]

]]> By: Comparing NTFS-3G to ZFS-FUSE for FUSE Performance at The Musings of Chris Samuel http://www.csamuel.org/2007/03/25/xfs-jfs-and-zfsfuse-benchmarks-on-ubuntu-feisty-fawn/comment-page-1#comment-7263 Comparing NTFS-3G to ZFS-FUSE for FUSE Performance at The Musings of Chris Samuel Wed, 25 Apr 2007 04:15:45 +0000 http://www.csamuel.org/2007/03/25/xfs-jfs-and-zfsfuse-benchmarks-on-ubuntu-feisty-fawn/#comment-7263 [...] I was wondering whether FUSE was being a bottleneck in my various ZFS-FUSE tests or whether the performance issues at present are just that ZFS is very young code on Linux and that the fact that Riccardo hasn’t yet started on optimisation. [...] [...] I was wondering whether FUSE was being a bottleneck in my various ZFS-FUSE tests or whether the performance issues at present are just that ZFS is very young code on Linux and that the fact that Riccardo hasn’t yet started on optimisation. [...]

]]>