About a year ago I switched to ZFS for Proxmox so that I wouldn’t be running technology preview.

Btrfs gave me no issues for years and I even replaced a dying disk with no issues. I use raid 1 for my Proxmox machines. Anyway I moved to ZFS and it has been a less that ideal experience. The separate kernel modules mean that I can’t downgrade the kernel plus the performance on my hardware is abysmal. I get only like 50-100mb/s vs the several hundred I would get with btrfs.

Any reason I shouldn’t go back to btrfs? There seems to be a community fear of btrfs eating data or having unexplainable errors. That is sad to hear as btrfs has had lots of time to mature in the last 8 years. I would never have considered it 5-6 years ago but now it seems like a solid choice.

Anyone else pondering or using btrfs? It seems like a solid choice.

  • stuner@lemmy.worldEnglish
    2·
    1 month ago

    I’m seeing very similar speeds on my two-HDD RAID1. The computer has an AMD 8500G CPU but the load from ZFS is minimal. Reading / writing a 50GB /dev/urandom file (larger than the cache) gives me:

    • 169 MB/s write
    • 254 MB/s read

    What’s your setup?

    • Possibly linux@lemmy.zipOPEnglish
      2·
      1 month ago

      Maybe I am CPU bottlenecked. I have a mix of i5-8500 and i7-6700k

      The drives are a mix but I get almost the same performance across machines

      • stuner@lemmy.worldEnglish
        2·
        1 month ago

        It’s possible, but you should be able to see it quite easily. In my case, the CPU utilization was very low, so the same test should also not be CPU-bottlenecked on your system.

        • Possibly linux@lemmy.zipOPEnglish
          1·
          1 month ago

          Is your machine part of a cluster by chance? Of so, when you do a VM transfer what performance do you see?