- The Musings of Chris Samuel - https://www.csamuel.org -

Comparing NTFS-3G to ZFS-FUSE for FUSE Performance

Posted By Chris Samuel On In Computers,Linux,Software,ZFS | 25 Comments

I was wondering whether FUSE was being a bottleneck in my various ZFS-FUSE [1] tests [2] 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.

As a quick reminder, here’s what JFS can do on a software RAID 1 array on this desktop:

Version  1.03       ------Sequential Output------ --Sequential Input- --Random-
                    -Per Chr- --Block-- -Rewrite- -Per Chr- --Block-- --Seeks--
Machine        Size K/sec %CP K/sec %CP K/sec %CP K/sec %CP K/sec %CP  /sec %CP
inside           2G           39388  11 24979   5           53968   6 255.4   1
                    ------Sequential Create------ --------Random Create--------
                    -Create-- --Read--- -Delete-- -Create-- --Read--- -Delete--
              files  /sec %CP  /sec %CP  /sec %CP  /sec %CP  /sec %CP  /sec %CP
                 16  9032  24 +++++ +++  8642  33  2621  18 +++++ +++   993   5
inside,2G,,,39388,11,24979,5,,,53968,6,255.4,1,16,9032,24,+++++,+++,8642,33,2621,18,+++++,+++,993,5

real    4m0.982s
user    0m0.292s
sys     0m17.201s

…and here is how ZFS-FUSE compares…

Version  1.03       ------Sequential Output------ --Sequential Input- --Random-
                    -Per Chr- --Block-- -Rewrite- -Per Chr- --Block-- --Seeks--
Machine        Size K/sec %CP K/sec %CP K/sec %CP K/sec %CP K/sec %CP  /sec %CP
inside           2G           18148   4  9957   3           28767   3 164.4   0
                    ------Sequential Create------ --------Random Create--------
                    -Create-- --Read--- -Delete-- -Create-- --Read--- -Delete--
              files  /sec %CP  /sec %CP  /sec %CP  /sec %CP  /sec %CP  /sec %CP
                 16  3093   6  6201   8  3090   4  2906   5  8592   9  4165   6
inside,2G,,,18148,4,9957,3,,,28767,3,164.4,0,16,3093,6,6201,8,3090,4,2906,5,8592,9,4165,6

real    7m59.385s
user    0m1.140s
sys     0m16.201s

That’s of the order of half the speed. So, how does NTFS-3G compare ? Here are the results:

Version  1.03       ------Sequential Output------ --Sequential Input- --Random-
                    -Per Chr- --Block-- -Rewrite- -Per Chr- --Block-- --Seeks--
Machine        Size K/sec %CP K/sec %CP K/sec %CP K/sec %CP K/sec %CP  /sec %CP
inside           2G           31222   6 14076   4           30118   2 137.5   0
                    ------Sequential Create------ --------Random Create--------
                    -Create-- --Read--- -Delete-- -Create-- --Read--- -Delete--
              files  /sec %CP  /sec %CP  /sec %CP  /sec %CP  /sec %CP  /sec %CP
                 16  1780   4 15379  10  4521   8  3276   7 16683  14  4429   5
inside,2G,,,31222,6,14076,4,,,30118,2,137.5,0,16,1780,4,15379,10,4521,8,3276,7,16683,14,4429,5

real    6m14.292s
user    0m1.032s
sys     0m14.173s

So at first blush it looks somewhere between the two with a 6+ minute run time, but the disk write & re-write speeds are substantially better than ZFS.

But where it gets really interesting is comparing NTFS-3G with my XFS results, below:

Version  1.03       ------Sequential Output------ --Sequential Input- --Random-
                    -Per Chr- --Block-- -Rewrite- -Per Chr- --Block-- --Seeks--
Machine        Size K/sec %CP K/sec %CP K/sec %CP K/sec %CP K/sec %CP  /sec %CP
inside           2G           31444   9 15949   4           30409   4 261.3   1
                    ------Sequential Create------ --------Random Create--------
                    -Create-- --Read--- -Delete-- -Create-- --Read--- -Delete--
              files  /sec %CP  /sec %CP  /sec %CP  /sec %CP  /sec %CP  /sec %CP
                 16  3291  21 +++++ +++  2720  14  3286  22 +++++ +++   874   7
inside,2G,,,31444,9,15949,4,,,30409,4,261.3,1,16,3291,21,+++++,+++,2720,14,3286,22,+++++,+++,874,7

real    5m38.876s
user    0m0.380s
sys     0m19.645s

Here’s a table of results comparing the write, rewrite and read speeds of each.

Write Rewrite Read
JFS (kernel) 39 25 54
XFS (kernel) 31 16 30
NTFS-3G (FUSE) 31 14 30
ZFS (FUSE) 18 10 28

So that’s pretty conclusive, we have a FUSE filesystem (which also claims to not be optimised [3]) which can pretty much match an in-kernel filesystem.

Related Posts