[atoponce]

I'm curious of the rest of the architecture. Each benchmark needs to be tested separately, as ZFS is likely caching the reads in the ARC. We also need a benchmark of ZFS without compression enabled.

However, we're not showing how bad ext3 is, but that the end result still shows the stellar performance, compression or not.

[cwsteinbach]

> as ZFS is likely caching the reads in the ARC

Each of the seven queries we used in our benchmark required a sequential scan of the 32GB dataset. It's unlikely that the ARC had any impact on the results since the EC2 instance had only 7GiB of memory.

[GalacticDomin8r]

ext3 does suck for certain workloads, one of them being large scale db's. And by suck, I mean dangerous. Unless you really want to set barrier on the fs and watch your IO plummet to 45 record player speeds.

[iso8859-1]

What is the reason for using ext3 over ext4?