Latest interface: 0.3.1
Latest system: 010
j3g
User

54 posts

Posted on 26 March 2014 @ 14:37
I stumbled on this article. I saw CIPHER in the comments defending ZFSGuru and offering to help...
I wanted to say, GOOD JOB CIPHER! The Benchmark feature in ZFSGuru is a great idea and handy. (although is the process documented?)

http://www.zfsbuild.com/2013/01/25/zfsbuild2012-nexenta-vs-freenas-vs-zfsguru/


PS. After 4+ years with ZFSGuru I cheated and decided to try FreeNAS for my new build. I HATE IT. The web interface made me nauseous. I couldn't get anything configured. Sooo confused. Immediately came back to ZFSGuru. Then I went on to Google+ and praised ZFSGuru.
CiPHER
Developer

1199 posts

Posted on 26 March 2014 @ 17:11
Thanks :)

To be fair; the guy that made those benchmarks did not care or bother with configuration. He just tested out of the box performance. We will never know why ZFSguru is so slow in his benchmarks. However, you should know that he uses a complicated iSCSI setup where many things can go wrong.

In his benchmarks, there is also a difference in FreeBSD version. ZFSguru uses a newer version than FreeNAS.

For people using normal Samba, those benchmarks do not mean anything. For people using iSCSI, probably will get much different performance as well.

The fact that ZFSguru scored lower in these benchmarks may be nothing more than a driver issue - an issue that does not bite FreeNAS because they use an older version of BSD which may not trigger the bug.

ZFSguru has two built-in benchmarks:
- advanced disk benchmarks tests multiple ZFS pool configurations. You get an image that displays performance of 3-disk RAID-Z, 4-disk RAID-Z, etc.
- pool benchmark is a simple and non-destructive benchmark that tests performance of an already existent pool.

ZFSguru should have near-identical performance to vanilla BSD - the underlying operating system. ZFSguru has some tuning done by default, such as Samba. But no tuning for iSCSI-target.
j3g
User

54 posts

Posted on 26 March 2014 @ 22:48
I agree with you that the majority of us are using Samba. I've had trouble getting permissions right with Samba (Read only on my Pictures folder). NFS was more straight forward with permissions.

In your experience does Samba perform better than NFS? (that is what I read)
Last Page

Valid XHTML 1.1