On 10/13/2018 11:22 AM, Adam Jensen wrote: > On 10/12/2018 11:09 PM, ~Stack~ wrote: >> For all the arguments of performance, well I wouldn't use either XFS or >> EXT4. I use ZFS and Ceph on the systems I want performance out of. > > For a single, modest server that runs everything - email, web, DBMS, > etc. - I've recently switched from FreeBSD-11.2 with a four disk ZFS > RAID-10 to SL-7.5 with XFS on a four disk hardware RAID-5. While ZFS was > very convenient and had a lot of nifty capabilities, the resource > consumption was enormous and performance didn't seem to be as good as it > is now. (E3-1245, 32GB RAM, MR9266-4i) >
We do a pool of mirrored disks with fast SSD's for our ZFS caching. Performance is fantastic and, as I mentioned in another reply, the rebuild time of a failed drive (or a resilvering when I upgraded all of the drives on the fly without downtime) is way faster than any RAID I've ever worked on before (which is quite a few in my career). However, even if performance wasn't great we would still probably be using it because of the tooling around ZFS. We utilize a lot of the tools it provides for shared file-systems, backups, compression, de-dupe, ect. Never used ZFS on *BSD. I've only used it on SL7 so I can't say anything about an OS difference. ~Stack~
