Zfs Windows

Storage fundamentals

1. Windows Zfs Driver
2. Zfs Windows Driver
3. Zfs File System Windows

This has been a long while in the making—it's test results time. To truly understand the fundamentals of computer storage, it's important to explore the impact of various conventional RAID (Redundant Array of Inexpensive Disks) topologies on performance. It's also important to understand what ZFS is and how it works. But at some point, people (particularly computer enthusiasts on the Internet) want numbers.

First, a quick note: This testing, naturally, builds on those fundamentals. We're going to draw heavily on lessons learned as we explore ZFS topologies here. Valentino rossi the doctor font download. If you aren't yet entirely solid on the difference between pools and vdevs or what ashift and recordsize mean, we strongly recommend you revisit those explainers before diving into testing and results.

And although everybody loves to see raw numbers, we urge an additional focus on how these figures relate to one another. All of our charts relate the performance of ZFS pool topologies at sizes from two to eight disks to the performance of a single disk. If you change the model of disk, your raw numbers will change accordingly—but for the most part, their relation to a single disk's performance will not.

The ZFS file system was originally developed by Sun Microsystems for the Solaris operating system. The ZFS source code was released in 2005 under the Common Development and Distribution License (CDDL) as part of the OpenSolaris operating system, and it was later ported to other operating systems and environments. Creating a Windows pool; Handling Driveletters; Registry; Using kstat; Automatic pool import; Running zfs-tests zfstest; Downloads. Currently we are doing releases on github.com, so use: Downloads; Nightly builds; Crash dump analysis. Windows minidumps; Windows boot-loop; Porting notes. Read the notes on porting to Windows; Codesigning.

Equipment as tested

The Storage Hot Rod's also got a dedicated LSI-9300-8i Host Bus Adapter (HBA) which isn't used for anything but the disks under test. The first four bays of the chassis have our own backup data on them—but they were idle during all tests here and are attached to the motherboard's SATA controller, entirely isolated from our test arrays.

How we tested

Windows Zfs Driver

For all tests, we're using ZFS on Linux 0.7.5, as found in main repositories for Ubuntu 18.04 LTS. It's worth noting that ZFS on Linux 0.7.5 is two years old now—there are features and performance improvements in newer versions of OpenZFS that weren't available in 0.7.5.

We tested with 0.7.5 anyway—much to the annoyance of at least one very senior OpenZFS developer—because when we ran the tests, 18.04 was the most current Ubuntu LTS and one of the most current stable distributions in general. In the next article in this series—on ZFS tuning and optimization—we'll update to the brand-new Ubuntu 20.04 LTS and a much newer ZFS on Linux 0.8.3.

Initial setup: ZFS vs mdraid/ext4

When we tested mdadm and ext4, we didn't really use the entire disk—we created a 1TiB partition at the head of each disk and used those 1TiB partitions. We also had to invoke arcane arguments—mkfs.ext4 -E lazy_itable_init=0,lazy_journal_init=0—to avoid ext4's preallocation from contaminating our results.

Using these relatively small partitions instead of the entire disks was a practical necessity, since ext4 needs to grovel over the entire created filesystem and disperse preallocated metadata blocks throughout. Postal accountant exam 2019 notification. If we had used the full disks, the usable space on the eight-disk RAID6 topology would have been roughly 65TiB—and it would have taken several hours to format, with similar agonizing waits for every topology tested.

Fall in love with creatures kokonoe kokoro. ZFS, happily, doesn't need or want to preallocate metadata blocks—it creates them on the fly as they become necessary instead. So we fed ZFS each 12TB Ironwolf disk in its entirety, and we didn't need to wait through lengthy formatting procedures—each topology, even the largest, was ready for use a second or two after creation, with no special arguments needed.

ZFS vs conventional RAID

The ZFS file system was originally developed by Sun Microsystems for the Solaris operating system. The ZFS source code was released in 2005 under the Common Development and Distribution License (CDDL) as part of the OpenSolaris operating system, and it was later ported to other operating systems and environments. Creating a Windows pool; Handling Driveletters; Registry; Using kstat; Automatic pool import; Running zfs-tests zfstest; Downloads. Currently we are doing releases on github.com, so use: Downloads; Nightly builds; Crash dump analysis. Windows minidumps; Windows boot-loop; Porting notes. Read the notes on porting to Windows; Codesigning.

Equipment as tested

The Storage Hot Rod's also got a dedicated LSI-9300-8i Host Bus Adapter (HBA) which isn't used for anything but the disks under test. The first four bays of the chassis have our own backup data on them—but they were idle during all tests here and are attached to the motherboard's SATA controller, entirely isolated from our test arrays.

How we tested

Windows Zfs Driver

For all tests, we're using ZFS on Linux 0.7.5, as found in main repositories for Ubuntu 18.04 LTS. It's worth noting that ZFS on Linux 0.7.5 is two years old now—there are features and performance improvements in newer versions of OpenZFS that weren't available in 0.7.5.

We tested with 0.7.5 anyway—much to the annoyance of at least one very senior OpenZFS developer—because when we ran the tests, 18.04 was the most current Ubuntu LTS and one of the most current stable distributions in general. In the next article in this series—on ZFS tuning and optimization—we'll update to the brand-new Ubuntu 20.04 LTS and a much newer ZFS on Linux 0.8.3.

Initial setup: ZFS vs mdraid/ext4

When we tested mdadm and ext4, we didn't really use the entire disk—we created a 1TiB partition at the head of each disk and used those 1TiB partitions. We also had to invoke arcane arguments—mkfs.ext4 -E lazy_itable_init=0,lazy_journal_init=0—to avoid ext4's preallocation from contaminating our results.

Using these relatively small partitions instead of the entire disks was a practical necessity, since ext4 needs to grovel over the entire created filesystem and disperse preallocated metadata blocks throughout. Postal accountant exam 2019 notification. If we had used the full disks, the usable space on the eight-disk RAID6 topology would have been roughly 65TiB—and it would have taken several hours to format, with similar agonizing waits for every topology tested.

Fall in love with creatures kokonoe kokoro. ZFS, happily, doesn't need or want to preallocate metadata blocks—it creates them on the fly as they become necessary instead. So we fed ZFS each 12TB Ironwolf disk in its entirety, and we didn't need to wait through lengthy formatting procedures—each topology, even the largest, was ready for use a second or two after creation, with no special arguments needed.

ZFS vs conventional RAID

ZFS is an entirely different animal, and it encompasses functions that normally might occupy three separate layers in a traditional Unixlike system. It's a logical volume manager, a RAID system, and a filesystem all wrapped into one. Merging traditional layers like this has caused many a senior admin to grind their teeth in outrage, but there are very good reasons for it.

There is an absolute ton of features ZFS offers, and users unfamiliar with them are highly encouraged to take a look at our 2014 coverage of next-generation filesystems for a basic overview as well as our recent ZFS 101 article for a much more comprehensive explanation.

Megabytes vs Mebibytes

As in the last article, our units of performance measurement here are kibibytes (KiB) and mebibytes (MiB). A kibibyte is 1,024 bytes, a mebibyte is 1,024 kibibytes, and so forth—in contrast to a kilobyte, which is 1,000 bytes, and a megabyte, which is 1,000 kilobytes.

Zfs Windows Driver

Kibibytes and their big siblings have always been the standard units for computer storage. Prior to the 1990s, computer professionals simply referred to them as K and M—and used the inaccurate metric prefixes when they spelled them out. But any time your operating system refers to GB, MB, or KB—whether in terms of free space, network speed, or amounts of RAM—it's really referring to GiB, MiB, and KiB.

Zfs File System Windows

Storage vendors, unfortunately, eventually seized upon the difference between the metrics as a way to more cheaply produce 'gigabyte' drives and then 'terabyte' drives—so a 500GB SSD is really only 465 GiB, and 12TB hard drives like the ones we're testing today are really only 10.9TiB each.