Filesystem Showdown: What a Difference a Decade Makes
21
Filesystem Showdown What a difference a decade makes Matt Janulewicz & Steve Oddo Dolby Labs
Transcript of Filesystem Showdown: What a Difference a Decade Makes
Filesystem ShowdownWhat a difference a decade makes
Matt Janulewicz & Steve OddoDolby Labs
2
The Problem
Perforce on Solaris is sunsetting
Standardizing on Linux
• Which filesystem?
Previous Merge presentations a decade old
Perforce has recommendations, no numbers
3
The Methodology
Standard Perforce branch-submit benchmark
Test on same physical hardware (retired master)
Use out-of-the-box settings (aside from compression)
Include Windows
Software RAID drives (lvm, ZFS, BTRFS, Windows volume)
Run tests five times, chart average
4
The System
Master server retired in March 2015
• 2 physical processors (Intel Xeon 2.2 Ghz)
• 16 cores (8 per CPU)
• 512 GB memory
Ten SAS drives
• 3 TB each
• Samsung 7200 RPM 6 Gbps
P4D 2015.1
5
Filesystems and OS’s
Solaris 11 x86_64
• ZFS (uncompressed/compressed lzjb)
RedHat Linux 7.2
• ZFS (uncompressed/compressed lzjb)
• Ext3/Ext4
• Xfs
• BTRFS (uncompressed/compressed lzo/compressed zlib)
Windows Server 2012R2
• NTFS/ReFS
6
Datasets
Branch-Submit
• ftp://ftp.perforce.com/perforce/tools/benchmarks/datasets/reference01.2015.1.ckp.gz
Miscellaneous Tests
• changes 6,478
• files 4,200,348
• revisions 5,658,595
• Integs 15,434,516
• total size 112 GB
7
Results (Benchmark)
Winner: XFS
Honorable Mention:BTRFS-compressed, BTRFS-uncompressed, ext3
Running Tally:
XFS: 1.0BTRFS-c: 0.5BTRFS-u: 0.5ext3: 0.5
8
Results (Benchmark)
Winner: BTRFS-c
Honorable Mention:BTRFS-u, XFS, ext4, ext3
Running Tally:
XFS: 1.5BTRFS-c: 1.5BTRFS-u: 1.0ext3: 1.0ext4: 0.5
9
Results (Benchmark)
Winner: BTRFS, ZFS-l
Honorable Mention:XFS, ext4, ext3
Running Tally:
BTRFS-c: 2.5XFS: 2.0BTRFS-u: 2.0ext3: 1.5ext4: 1.0ZFS-l: 1.0
10
Results (Benchmark)
Winner: ZFS-l
Honorable Mention:BTRFS-u, BTRFS-c
Running Tally:
BTRFS-c: 3.0BTRFS-u: 2.5XFS: 2.0ZFS-l: 2.0ext3: 1.5ext4: 1.0
11
Results (Benchmark)
Winner: XFS, ext4
Honorable Mention:Ext3, BTRFS-c, BTRFS-u
Running Tally:
BTRFS-c: 3.5XFS: 3.0BTRFS-u: 3.0ext4: 2.0ZFS-l: 2.0ext3: 1.5
12
Results (Benchmark)
Winner: XFS, ext4
Honorable Mention:Ext3, BTRFS-c, BTRFS-u
Running Tally:
XFS: 4.0BTRFS-c: 4.0BTRFS-u: 3.5ext4: 3.0ext3: 2.0ZFS-l: 2.0
13
Results (Miscellaneous)
Winner: ext3, BTRFS-u, BTRFS-c, ext4, XFS
Honorable Mention:
Running Tally:
XFS: 5.0BTRFS-c: 5.0BTRFS-u: 4.5ext4: 4.0ext3: 3.0ZFS-l: 2.0
14
Results (Miscellaneous)
Winner: ext3, BTRFS-u, BTRFS-c, ext4, XFS
Honorable Mention:
Running Tally:
XFS: 6.0BTRFS-c: 6.0BTRFS-u: 5.5ext4: 5.0ext3: 4.0ZFS-l: 2.0
15
Results (Miscellaneous)
Winner: BTRFS-c
Honorable Mention:BTRFS-u, ext3
Running Tally:
BTRFS-c: 7.0XFS: 6.0BTRFS-u: 5.5ext4: 5.0ext3: 4.5ZFS-l: 2.0
16
Results (Miscellaneous)
Winner: BTRFS-u
Honorable Mention:BTRFS-c, ext3, ZFS-l
Running Tally:
BTRFS-c: 7.5BTRFS-u: 6.5XFS: 6.0ext3: 5.0ext4: 5.0ZFS-l: 2.5
17
Results (Miscellaneous)
Winner: XFS, ext4
Honorable Mention:BTRFS-c, BTRFS-u, ext3
Running Tally:
BTRFS-c: 8.0XFS: 7.0BTRFS-u: 7.0ext3: 5.5ext4: 5.0ZFS-l: 2.5
Poor Performers: Windows, ZFS
Better Performers: Linux (anything)
19
Final Thoughts
Windows performs generally worse when compared to almost any Linux filesystem.
XFS is a solid choice. Supported, mature, fast.
BTRFS compressed vs uncompressed not hugely different.
Ext3 holds up surprisingly well. Go figure.
20
Questions For You
Are ZFS features worth the performance hit? (likely)
Is BTRFS ready for primetime? (perhaps)
Is Windows performance poor enough to justify introducing Linux into your data center? (yes, yes it is)
Contact us for raw data or further questions.
