From owner-freebsd-performance@freebsd.org Thu Mar 21 16:27:58 2019 Return-Path: Delivered-To: freebsd-performance@mailman.ysv.freebsd.org Received: from mx1.freebsd.org (mx1.freebsd.org [IPv6:2610:1c1:1:606c::19:1]) by mailman.ysv.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 66E131547534; Thu, 21 Mar 2019 16:27:58 +0000 (UTC) (envelope-from SRS0=W+vi=RY=quip.cz=000.fbsd@elsa.codelab.cz) Received: from elsa.codelab.cz (elsa.codelab.cz [94.124.105.4]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384 (256/256 bits)) (Client did not present a certificate) by mx1.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id DD4936C32B; Thu, 21 Mar 2019 16:27:57 +0000 (UTC) (envelope-from SRS0=W+vi=RY=quip.cz=000.fbsd@elsa.codelab.cz) Received: from elsa.codelab.cz (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by elsa.codelab.cz (Postfix) with ESMTP id D52BD28417; Thu, 21 Mar 2019 17:27:46 +0100 (CET) Received: from illbsd.quip.test (ip-86-49-16-209.net.upcbroadband.cz [86.49.16.209]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES128-GCM-SHA256 (128/128 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by elsa.codelab.cz (Postfix) with ESMTPSA id 0EE6228426; Thu, 21 Mar 2019 17:27:44 +0100 (CET) To: freebsd-performance@freebsd.org, "freebsd-fs@FreeBSD.org" From: Miroslav Lachman <000.fbsd@quip.cz> Subject: FreeBSD ZFS vs. TrueOS ZoF benchmarks Message-ID: <907466e6-1cc1-6977-6d06-20aed1200d4b@quip.cz> Date: Thu, 21 Mar 2019 17:27:40 +0100 User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; FreeBSD amd64; rv:52.0) Gecko/20100101 Firefox/52.0 SeaMonkey/2.49.3 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Rspamd-Queue-Id: DD4936C32B X-Spamd-Bar: +++ Authentication-Results: mx1.freebsd.org X-Spamd-Result: default: False [3.73 / 15.00]; TO_DN_EQ_ADDR_SOME(0.00)[]; RCVD_VIA_SMTP_AUTH(0.00)[]; RCVD_COUNT_THREE(0.00)[3]; MX_GOOD(-0.01)[cached: elsa.codelab.cz]; RCPT_COUNT_TWO(0.00)[2]; FORGED_SENDER(0.30)[000.fbsd@quip.cz,SRS0=W@elsa.codelab.cz]; RECEIVED_SPAMHAUS_PBL(0.00)[209.16.49.86.zen.spamhaus.org : 127.0.0.11]; RCVD_TLS_LAST(0.00)[]; R_DKIM_NA(0.00)[]; ASN(0.00)[asn:42000, ipnet:94.124.104.0/21, country:CZ]; MID_RHS_MATCH_FROM(0.00)[]; TAGGED_FROM(0.00)[vi=RY=quip.cz=000.fbsd]; ARC_NA(0.00)[]; FROM_NEQ_ENVFROM(0.00)[000.fbsd@quip.cz,SRS0=W@elsa.codelab.cz]; FROM_HAS_DN(0.00)[]; TO_MATCH_ENVRCPT_ALL(0.00)[]; NEURAL_SPAM_SHORT(0.58)[0.585,0]; MIME_GOOD(-0.10)[text/plain]; MIME_TRACE(0.00)[0:+]; AUTH_NA(1.00)[]; NEURAL_SPAM_MEDIUM(0.84)[0.845,0]; DMARC_NA(0.00)[quip.cz]; IP_SCORE(0.19)[ip: (0.46), ipnet: 94.124.104.0/21(0.23), asn: 42000(0.18), country: CZ(0.07)]; NEURAL_SPAM_LONG(0.92)[0.925,0]; RCVD_IN_DNSWL_NONE(0.00)[4.105.124.94.list.dnswl.org : 127.0.10.0]; R_SPF_NA(0.00)[] X-BeenThere: freebsd-performance@freebsd.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.29 Precedence: list List-Id: Performance/tuning List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Thu, 21 Mar 2019 16:27:58 -0000 There is a benchmark comparing ZFS in FreeBSD 12 with ZFS in TrueOS based on ZFSonFreeBSD 9https://zfsonfreebsd.github.io/ZoF/0 FreeBSD ZFS vs. TrueOS ZoF vs. DragonFlyBSD HAMMER2 vs. ZFS On Linux Benchmarks https://www.phoronix.com/scan.php?page=article&item=bsd-initial-zof&num=1 I am interested if there will be enough testing before replacing the official FreeBSD code base with ZoF. ZFS in FreeBSD 12 is much faster so I am afraid if FreeBSD based on ZoF will be as fast as our current implementation of ZFS. Kind regards Miroslav Lachman