Re: ZFS or BTRFS for performance?

[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]

 



Neither of these file systems is recommended for production use underlying an OSD.  The general direction for ceph is to move away from having a file system at all.

That effort is called "bluestore" and is supposed to show up in the jewel release.

-H

> On Mar 18, 2016, at 11:15, Schlacta, Christ <aarcane@xxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> 
> Insofar as I've been able to tell, both BTRFS and ZFS provide similar
> capabilities back to CEPH, and both are sufficiently stable for the
> basic CEPH use case (Single disk -> single mount point), so the
> question becomes this:  Which actually provides better performance?
> Which is the more highly optimized single write path for ceph?  Does
> anybody have a handful of side-by-side benchmarks?  I'm more
> interested in higher IOPS, since you can always scale-out throughput,
> but throughput is also important.
> _______________________________________________
> ceph-users mailing list
> ceph-users@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx
> http://lists.ceph.com/listinfo.cgi/ceph-users-ceph.com
_______________________________________________
ceph-users mailing list
ceph-users@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx
http://lists.ceph.com/listinfo.cgi/ceph-users-ceph.com



[Index of Archives]     [Information on CEPH]     [Linux Filesystem Development]     [Ceph Development]     [Ceph Large]     [Ceph Dev]     [Linux USB Development]     [Video for Linux]     [Linux Audio Users]     [Yosemite News]     [Linux Kernel]     [Linux SCSI]     [xfs]


  Powered by Linux