1. This site uses cookies. By continuing to use this site, you are agreeing to our use of cookies. Learn More.

ZFS vs UFS

Discussion in 'General' started by Wolfram, Nov 12, 2010.

  1. Wolfram

    Wolfram New Member

    Messages:
    12
    Likes Received:
    0
    Hello dear community,

    I suppose to install FreeBSD 8.1 (amd64) on a VMware ESXi 4.0/4.1 [vSphere 4.0/4.1] Host; the VM's main specifications are:

    - Intel DualCore (E5450 @ 3.00GHz)
    - 4GB RAM
    - 1 x 80GB HD

    Which is in your opinion the best ( = fast / stable / best performance) filesystem for this VM?

    I would be really grateful if you could share your experience.

    Cheers!
     
  2. olav

    olav New Member

    Messages:
    349
    Likes Received:
    0
    Both can be fast, and both are stable. ZFS's main advantage over UFS is end to end checksumming. But that won't matter on a system without ECC memory? Correct me if I'm wrong.
     
  3. Alt

    Alt New Member

    Messages:
    726
    Likes Received:
    0
    Probably you will need scalable fs/raid and/or easy backup/restore, so you should think into future and chose depending on needs
     
  4. Wolfram

    Wolfram New Member

    Messages:
    12
    Likes Received:
    0
    hi olav, thank you for your reply.

    well, as I wrote, it's a vm host, so I am not sure if the RAM used has ECC.

    the vm is supposed to be used as web- and databaseserver, so our major interests are 1) speed and 2) stability.

    certainly zfs has much more features than ufs, but the question is, if it's at least as fast and stable as ufs.
     
  5. graudeejs

    graudeejs Member

    Messages:
    4,594
    Likes Received:
    0
    ZFS advantages over UFS:
    raidz 1 or 2
    Unlimited snapshots, clones, filesystems
    pool bases storage...
    self healing


    Did I say snapshots?
    Snapshots have saved lot of time for me
     
  6. shitson

    shitson New Member

    Messages:
    181
    Likes Received:
    0
    I don't really think it's a case of "vs" i really think each to their own strengths. ZFS will be used for your storage critical data and you will use UFS for your root and primary OS drives. I remembering hearing that UFS is very robust and also that tools for recovery from ZFS are not upto the standards of UFS. If using UFS ensure that your partition our your drive to prevent a partition failure from taking out too much data... I'm sure that someone could shed some more light on this topic.
     
  7. oliverh

    oliverh New Member

    Messages:
    557
    Likes Received:
    0
    Differences: ZFS is stable, UFS is rock-stable (more than 20 years). ZFS is fast, UFS out of the box is poorly configured in FreeBSD. If you're working constantly with lots of huge data etc. then go with ZFS, but place your operating system on UFS. I do know many server environments, where the advantage of ZFS is small or sometimes even of no use at all. Playing with ZFS on some desktop is nice, but using ZFS - at least in FreeBSD - on a full-blown production server is quiet a different story. There are still theeting troubles in some areas of ZFS especially on its FreeBSD port.
     
  8. expl

    expl New Member

    Messages:
    664
    Likes Received:
    0
    For file servers ZFS is the best solution out there. For anything else I would go with UFS as a lot of services commonly used have their own caching mechanisms and will just create memory overhead over ZFS with no speed performance increase (it will even decrease compared to UFS).
     
  9. dennylin93

    dennylin93 New Member

    Messages:
    784
    Likes Received:
    0
    About the "ZFS is fast" part... ZFS is slower than UFS when writing to disk on all the servers I have access to (using mirror and raidz1), so I only use ZFS for data storage. However, this varies depending on your hardward and setup.

    The major benefits of ZFS: snapshots, compression, checksums, and RAID.
     
  10. danbi

    danbi New Member

    Messages:
    227
    Likes Received:
    0
    ZFS/UFS is faster is speculative at least, without providing intended usage and layout. For specific tasks either of these is clearly faster. ZFS benefits greatly from caching and re-ordering/grouping of writing operations, prefetch etc. However, to see the benefit you need to have sufficiently large server (as in CPU, RAM and number of disks).

    ZFS does things UFS has never done, so the comparison is not really adequate. It's sort of comparing DOS with UFS. :)
     
  11. wonslung

    wonslung New Member

    Messages:
    850
    Likes Received:
    0
    ZFS is really fast with newer hardware. I've got some zfs systems which read over 600 MB/s

    I'd say if you're on less than 4 gb ram OR using a 32 bit cpu, UFS will likely be faster though.
     
  12. UNIXgod

    UNIXgod New Member

    Messages:
    1,089
    Likes Received:
    0
    Has anyone here used hammer? curious how that stacks up to zfs?
     
  13. Nukama

    Nukama Member

    Messages:
    129
    Likes Received:
    0
  14. rusty

    rusty New Member

    Messages:
    258
    Likes Received:
    0
    :) Gotta love the compression on them drives.
     
  15. oliverh

    oliverh New Member

    Messages:
    557
    Likes Received:
    0
    ZFS can be even a lot slower than UFS in certain areas and it doesn't depend on the hardware. Reads over xxx MB/s are nonsense, such numbers are maybe impressive for some gamers or home users, but without any further meaning for a server. Apart from that, compensating shortcomings of software with hardware is sometimes a sign for bad coding. Don't get me wrong, ZFS is really nice, especially in Solaris, but you know Solaris is also known as "Slowlaris" and ZFS is just a part of it designed for Solaris.
     
  16. UNIXgod

    UNIXgod New Member

    Messages:
    1,089
    Likes Received:
    0
  17. dennylin93

    dennylin93 New Member

    Messages:
    784
    Likes Received:
    0
    On one box here with 3x500 GB SATA drives in raidz1 (with 64-bit Xeon and 4 GB RAM), ZFS has faster reads than UFS, but slower writes.
     
  18. wonslung

    wonslung New Member

    Messages:
    850
    Likes Received:
    0
    I'm sorry but you're wrong on many points here. ZFS absolutely DOES scale well on new hardware and is QUITE fast.

    reads over xxx MB/s isn't nonsense at all, it's very real and very possible. gigabit links in an aggregation and i have no problem maxing both out over the network. Anyways, I'm aware zfs can be slower than UFS, and it's typically on older machines without much ram, but on newer hardware, it scales very well and is often faster.
     
  19. wonslung

    wonslung New Member

    Messages:
    850
    Likes Received:
    0

    Yes, i believe that. Scale it up a bit and you'll probably notice faster reads AND writes. Add a vdev or two and it will make a huge difference. Also, double the ram and you'll notice a huge performance increase as well.

    The more drives and vdevs you give zfs, the higher the potential read/write speed (though it depends on layout) . ZFS can make intelligent i/o choices that other filesystems don't have the option to make.
     
  20. chrcol

    chrcol New Member

    Messages:
    347
    Likes Received:
    0
    in my opinion UFS days are numbered.

    zfs not only has better features but it is also much faster in response times and cache management, things like mysql are much more responsive as zfs has much better random access and i/o latency. In addition UFS doesnt improve under NCQ like zfs does, it seems to have some kind of extra bottleneck.

    I have sata zfs mirror outperforming scsi raid10 on ufs.
     
  21. carlton_draught

    carlton_draught New Member

    Messages:
    288
    Likes Received:
    0
    I would consider using another HDD in mirror configuration for ZFS. It will double read speed and more importantly, allow self-healing and toleration of 1 head crash. As your setup is now, if one HDD is corrupting data or has a head crash, your system is potentially hosed.

    Edit: Oh whoops, it is run in a VM. Nevermind then. You might want to consider using COPIES=2 for self-healing.
     
  22. bsd10

    bsd10 New Member

    Messages:
    72
    Likes Received:
    0
    Why won't it matter on a system without ECC memory?
     
  23. kpa

    kpa Member

    Messages:
    4,005
    Likes Received:
    9
    One could argue that without ECC memory there is no way to detect corruption that happens when the file contents are in memory (for example a text file loaded into an editor) and the system would happily write back corrupted data to disk and zfs checksum wouldn't help in that case.
     
  24. aragon

    aragon New Member

    Messages:
    2,031
    Likes Received:
    0
    Is a ZFS system without ECC memory at any more risk of data loss than a UFS system of the same?
     
  25. carlton_draught

    carlton_draught New Member

    Messages:
    288
    Likes Received:
    0
    I don't believe so.

    However, I know that at least for me the hashes are the primary reason I use ZFS over all other file systems. If you have this higher requirement that your data is not being corrupted over time, it is incongruous to run non-ECC RAM, seeing that this opens a much larger window for your programs to write errant data (and the only thing ZFS will do is ensure that the data will remain incorruptibly errant!). Of course, it is possible that those who use ZFS want some other feature that it has over UFS and don't care about data corruption, in which case it will not matter.