Date: Sat, 8 Jan 2011 16:51:53 +0000 From: Bruce Cran <bruce@cran.org.uk> To: Paul Pathiakis <pathiaki2@yahoo.com> Cc: freebsd-performance@freebsd.org, Miroslav Lachman <000.fbsd@quip.cz> Subject: Re: Phoronix comparision of HAMMER, UFS, ZFS, EXT3, EXT4, Btrfs Message-ID: <20110108165153.0000147c@unknown> In-Reply-To: <448737.83863.qm@web110508.mail.gq1.yahoo.com> References: <4D26FBD3.20307@quip.cz> <448737.83863.qm@web110508.mail.gq1.yahoo.com>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
On Fri, 7 Jan 2011 06:12:38 -0800 (PST) Paul Pathiakis <pathiaki2@yahoo.com> wrote: > The results came out like this: > > EXT3 - ~3000 tps > EXT4 - ~3800 tps > XFS - ~ 1800 tps > ZFS - 75000 tps ZFS seems very good at keeping the disk busy with lots of buffering - on my machine gstat shows the disk at 100% for several seconds even after the application has finished. Despite seeing iops go as high as 65k the average seems not so impressive at around 15k, though it is only on a single SATA drive. -- Bruce Cran
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?20110108165153.0000147c>