Comment by ryao
4 days ago
The guy did not have any data to justify his claims of not scaling. Percona’s data says otherwise. If you don’t like how they got their data, then I advise you to do your own benchmarks.
4 days ago
The guy did not have any data to justify his claims of not scaling. Percona’s data says otherwise. If you don’t like how they got their data, then I advise you to do your own benchmarks.
It is based on data from internal benchmarks. Zfs is fine for database workloads but scales worse than Xfs based on my personal experience. It is unpublished benchmarks and I do not have access to any farm to win a discussion on the internet.
I did internal benchmarks at ClusterHQ in 2016. Those benchmarks showed that a tuned ZFS FS of the time had 85% the performance of XFS on equal hardware (a beefy EC2 instance with 4 SSDs, with XFS using MD RAID 0), but it was considered a win for ZFS because of the performance difference when running backups. L2ARC was not considered since the underlying storage was already SSD based and there was nothing faster, but in practice, you often can use it with a faster tier of storage and that puts ZFS ahead even without considering the substantial performance dips of backups.
I don't have anything to like or not to like. I'm not a user of ZFS filesystem. I'm just dismissing your invalid argumentation. Percona's data is nothing about the scale for reasons I already mentioned.
The argument he made was invalid without data to back it up. I at least cited something. The remarks on the performance when backups are made and the benefits of L2ARC were really the most important points, and are far from invalid.