Josef Bacik <jbacik@xxxxxxxxxxxx> schrieb: >> So I guess the reason that ZFS does well with that workload is that >> ZFS is using smaller blocks, maybe just 512B ? > > Yeah I'm not sure what ZFS does, but if you are writing over a block and > the size/offset isn't aligned then you'd see similar issues with ZFS since > it would > have to read+modify+write. It is likely that ZFS just is using a smaller > blocksize. >From what I remember, ZFS uses dynamic block sizes. However, block size can be forced and thus tuned for workloads that require it: http://www.joyent.com/blog/bruning-questions-zfs-record-size Maybe that's the reason... It would be interesting to see how the benchmarks performed with forced block size. Regards, Kai -- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-btrfs" in the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
