what's your ZFS flavor?

[gea]

For overall tests (that include network, driver and services) I prefer benchmarks from Windows with nic settings like Jumboframes and interrupt throttling disabled, either tests like a Crystal Disk benchmark over an iSCSI target with sync always/disabled or the AJA testsuite for video editing with 4k RGB over SMB2 see http://napp-it.org/doc/downloads/performance_smb2.pdf

While 1G performance was quite similar, I saw the biggest difference over 10/40G

For my last local tests I use a filebench test suite script (Menu Pools > Benchmark) see http://napp-it.org/doc/downloads/optane_slog_pool_performane.pdf

I may add a Solaris test to the latter to check differences that are more related to Oracle ZFS v37 vs the newest OpenZFS.

 

[gea]

I have added some tests with iSCSI and SMB under OpenZFS/OmniOS vs genuine Oracle Solaris ZFS v.37
Solaris is way faster than Open-ZFS in my tests, sometimes dramatically.

If someone with Solaris can compare his/her iSCSI/ SMB values from Windows as they are too good, especially the sync write values. With an HD pool and an Optane it offers sync write values of several hundred MB/s making a fast and secure (even SMB) filer from mechanical disks with sync enabled possible.

ex sync write from an HD pool with Optane slog over SMB: 1.6 GB/s, without sync 2 GB/s

 

[Davewolfs]

I have added some tests with iSCSI and SMB under OpenZFS/OmniOS vs genuine Oracle Solaris ZFS v.37
Solaris is way faster than Open-ZFS in my tests, sometimes dramatically.

If someone with Solaris can compare his/her iSCSI/ SMB values from Windows as they are too good, especially the sync write values. With an HD pool and an Optane it offers sync write values of several hundred MB/s making a fast and secure (even SMB) filer from mechanical disks with sync enabled possible.

ex sync write from an HD pool with Optane slog over SMB: 1.6 GB/s, without sync 2 GB/s

Don't think anyone uses Solaris Oracle themselves canned the team for lack of demand.

 

[dswartz]

Don't think anyone uses Solaris Oracle themselves canned the team for lack of demand.

Well, lack of enough people willing to pay Oracle's ridiculous prices...

 

[Davewolfs]

Well, lack of enough people willing to pay Oracle's ridiculous prices...

Well it's not free to employee people full time and I'm sure that Oracle has a formula where they must receive %X return to justify keeping a product alive. If we are lucky they will eventually dump the source on the community.

I'm thankful that FreeBSD and Linux have finally caught up and I'm sure in some cases have even surpassed.

 

[Linda Kateley]

I run them all. My company does consulting and support around all of them.

I like freenas, but the leading edge of it is bleeding. Freenas is stable because of the stability of freebsd. I also like napp-it. Most the time my customers make the choice.

If I have my choice I do like oracle solaris. It just is the most stable and has the strongest company behind it. Omni is good but still has some odd issues. The linux distros have the best driver support but also is on the bleeding edge.

I do think it depends on what you want to do.. san is different than smb.. Cost vs reliability

 

[Linda Kateley]

Well, lack of enough people willing to pay Oracle's ridiculous prices...

Actually oracle support is less expensive than alot of the open source derived zfs tools. Most of the ones focused on storage charge per TB.. where oracle charges per socket. There is a point where it is a better deal.