|
|
|
|
|
by kbenson
4295 days ago
|
|
I'd be interested in seeing that. It's been a while since I really followed the site, but I seem to recall he was at least forward about what he was testing and why in the text around the benchmarks, I will admit to him seeming to be overly eager to get articles out, sometimes of ambiguous usefulness, probably due to his advertising model (at least at the time, when I was there earlier it seemed far less riddled with advertising). Edit: Nevermind about the advertising, it's still intrusive, I'm just running adblock now. |
|
As for Phoronix's ZFS benchmarks, the test hardware used drives that misreported themselves as having 512-byte sectors, which handicapped ZFS performance. Phoronix rejected all suggestions that it correct for this as end-users had been doing. Phoronix refused to meet half way by posting two results (one with proper configuration and one without), and also refused the suggestion that it to mention the existence of that problem in its test hardware. I eventually wrote code to identify drives known to misreport their sector sizes so that ZFS will automatically use the correct settings on them. That lead to the Phoronix August 2013 benchmarks showing a remarkable improvement in ZFS performance in FIO. It was so great that it sparked a discussion among the btrfs developers:
http://comments.gmane.org/gmane.comp.file-systems.btrfs/2754...
Later that month, I publicly criticized Phoronix for posting misleading benchmarks:
http://phoronix.com/forums/showthread.php?83731-ZFSOnLinux-0...
Phoronix has not posted ZFS benchmarks since that time.