About a year ago I switched to ZFS for Proxmox so that I wouldn’t be running technology preview.

Btrfs gave me no issues for years and I even replaced a dying disk with no issues. I use raid 1 for my Proxmox machines. Anyway I moved to ZFS and it has been a less that ideal experience. The separate kernel modules mean that I can’t downgrade the kernel plus the performance on my hardware is abysmal. I get only like 50-100mb/s vs the several hundred I would get with btrfs.

Any reason I shouldn’t go back to btrfs? There seems to be a community fear of btrfs eating data or having unexplainable errors. That is sad to hear as btrfs has had lots of time to mature in the last 8 years. I would never have considered it 5-6 years ago but now it seems like a solid choice.

Anyone else pondering or using btrfs? It seems like a solid choice.

  • Suzune@ani.social
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    4
    arrow-down
    2
    ·
    9 hours ago

    The question is how do you get a bad performance with ZFS?

    I just tried to read a large file and it gave me uncached 280 MB/s from two mirrored HDDs.

    The fourth run (obviously cached) gave me over 3.8 GB/s.

    • Possibly linux@lemmy.zipOP
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      1
      ·
      edit-2
      8 hours ago

      I have never heard of anyone getting those speeds without dedicated high end hardware

      Also the write will always be your bottleneck.

      • Suzune@ani.social
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        2
        ·
        edit-2
        5 hours ago

        This is an old PC (Intel i7 3770K) with 2 HDDs (16 TB) attached to onboard SATA3 controller, 16 GB RAM and 1 SSD (120 GB). Nothing special. And it’s quite busy because it’s my home server with a VM and containers.

      • stuner@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        2
        ·
        edit-2
        6 hours ago

        I’m seeing very similar speeds on my two-HDD RAID1. The computer has an AMD 8500G CPU but the load from ZFS is minimal. Reading / writing a 50GB /dev/urandom file (larger than the cache) gives me:

        • 169 MB/s write
        • 254 MB/s read

        What’s your setup?

        • Possibly linux@lemmy.zipOP
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          1
          ·
          6 hours ago

          Maybe I am CPU bottlenecked. I have a mix of i5-8500 and i7-6700k

          The drives are a mix but I get almost the same performance across machines

          • stuner@lemmy.world
            link
            fedilink
            English
            arrow-up
            1
            ·
            6 hours ago

            It’s possible, but you should be able to see it quite easily. In my case, the CPU utilization was very low, so the same test should also not be CPU-bottlenecked on your system.

        • Possibly linux@lemmy.zipOP
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          1
          ·
          6 hours ago

          How much ram and what is the drive size?

          I suspect this also could be an issue with SSDs. I have seen a lot a posts around describing similar performance on SSDs.