ZFS Speedtest: napp-it/Nexenta/OI etc
- Thread starter awedio
- Start date
Notice: Page may contain affiliate links for which we may earn a small commission through services like Amazon Affiliates or Skimlinks.
You'd have to be more specific than that. Your comparing a filesystem (ZFS) against a file-sharing protocol (SMB3).
What filesystem do you want to run on the Server 2012 system? If you are comparing to Storage Spaces then I don't think you have to do a lot of benchmarking to know which one wins. But if you allow hardware raid on the server 2012 system then it might be a more interesting race.
Also - are you talking about 1Gbe links or 10Gbe? It makes a big difference. At 1Gbe either approach can probably saturate the network pretty easily. If you allow multiple 1Gbe links side-by-side then the Server 2012 system probably wins because SMB3 can easily use multiple links while the ZFS/Solaris-derived system can't (well, it can, but it takes a lot of special configuration).
So - be a bit more specific about how you'd like to see it tested and I'm sure there are more than a few people here who would take up the mantle.
I kept it very general, as I was really looking for some back & forth dialogue.
At the end of the day, both can be used for the same purposes
ZFS can host VMs that are used File servers, Databases, Application servers etc
SMB3 can be the "highway" to VMs hosted on Server 2012
Are we talking ZFS with dedicated ZIL (eg, STEC Zeus or SAS SSDs) or
are we talking Storage Spaces + multi channel SMB3 + a couple Mellanox FDR NICs
Maybe, my general question should have been; why pick one vs the other?
At the end of the day, both can be used for the same purposes
ZFS can host VMs that are used File servers, Databases, Application servers etc
SMB3 can be the "highway" to VMs hosted on Server 2012
Are we talking ZFS with dedicated ZIL (eg, STEC Zeus or SAS SSDs) or
are we talking Storage Spaces + multi channel SMB3 + a couple Mellanox FDR NICs
Maybe, my general question should have been; why pick one vs the other?
That is actually the best question. If you could have the filesystem features and performance of ZFS with the file-sharing performance of SMB3 it would be ideal.Maybe, my general question should have been; why pick one vs the other?
I'm hoping some smart geek or geeks have figured a way to make this a reality.....
Cross platform dynamic multi-pathing. drool I have hope for ReFS, but ZFS has a little bit of a head start.
Once one gets into the realm of twin hard multipath 40/56Gbps IB connections being your limiting factor, maybe a redesign of ones storage subsystem needs to be considered. Pointing to the multitude of distributed file/data systems like Lustre/GlusterFS/DFS/GFS and local flash caching. If your data set is small enough, bring everything into once system; I think dba's "Data Warehouse/Analytics/BI Servers" a good example.
More general observation, I love the cyclical trend of monolithic to distributed solutions in computer technologies. A bottleneck is found and solved with distribution then it is all brought back into a single system for reduced latency and complexity and a new bottleneck is found and thus causes distribution.
I believe you are mistaken, it is not SMB1/2 for ZFS/iScsi. The option Gea is mentioned is using iScsi to share the ZFS storage to the Windows server, which can then format it to NTFS or other file system and share it to your network via SMB3. Hence, combining both worlds. I believe you would mostly do this with an all in one box
Last edited:
Playing with it now. Not impressed. but I have some more tweaks to get through before I draw any final conclusions.
Started a new thread to avoid hijacking this one: http://forums.servethehome.com/wind...2012-r2-storage-spaces-tiering.html#post21678
Last edited:
I did this quite awhile ago. Hardest thing used to be that Hyper-V is not so great with non-Linux hosts and ESXi 5.1 (free) was RAM limited.
I think that illumos will be one of the last platforms to implement SMB 3 or 4 at this point because it is not derived from Samba but Procom. I can not find any plans for illumos to support or implement SMB 3 or 4. While Linux and BSD will support the current release 4.0.10. If anyone can find anything different please let me know.
I run hyper-v and this really is putting a kink in the chain. I need zfs and smb 3+ so my only choice is to move to BSD or maybe Linux. What OS would you choose for the best zfs implementation BSD?
"The illumos CIFS server was derived from an implementation that Sun bought from Procom in 2005. Contrary to what many people assume, the implementation is not derived from Samba."
I run hyper-v and this really is putting a kink in the chain. I need zfs and smb 3+ so my only choice is to move to BSD or maybe Linux. What OS would you choose for the best zfs implementation BSD?
"The illumos CIFS server was derived from an implementation that Sun bought from Procom in 2005. Contrary to what many people assume, the implementation is not derived from Samba."
I kept it very general, as I was really looking for some back & forth dialogue.
At the end of the day, both can be used for the same purposes
ZFS can host VMs that are used File servers, Databases, Application servers etc
SMB3 can be the "highway" to VMs hosted on Server 2012
Are we talking ZFS with dedicated ZIL (eg, STEC Zeus or SAS SSDs) or
are we talking Storage Spaces + multi channel SMB3 + a couple Mellanox FDR NICs
Maybe, my general question should have been; why pick one vs the other?
This is not a question of the OS but a question of the SMB server.
You can try SAMBA 4 - available on any X system.
For OmniOS, you find it here as an example
OmniOS Package Repository: uulm.mawi
Package Search