10 ms·
I didn't see in the post, but have you considered also Btrfs if you are on Linux? Currently, I use Btrfs on Synology, mainly because snapshots and checksums ar
by paffdragon 3mo ago
I didn't see in the post, but have you considered also Btrfs if you are on Linux?
Currently, I use Btrfs on Synology, mainly because snapshots and checksums are nice, but I never really did the work to do benchmarks against other FS. In the past my choice was Ext4 or XFS with LUKS/LVM, then Btrfs matured and since then I moved to it. So far I had no issues, but YMMV, some people consider it still not entirely reliable, but I do backups. I'm setting up a FreeBSD server where ZFS was the natural choice, again snapshots, boot environments, native encryption and just maturity/reliability. I haven't considered OpenZFS yet, mainly because my Synology does not support it, but your benchmarks have some interesting numbers, when I'll have again enough money for some new HDDs I may give it a try.
- jcalvinowens 3mo ago+1 for btrfs If a NAS has a 1G or even 2.5G NIC, improving the filesystem performance is a waste of time... the network is the bottleneck. My N100 two-disk btrfs-raid1 NAS hits line rate on a 2.5G NIC, that's all that matters to me.
- hpb42 3mo agoI use ZFS on my laptops and desktop but kind of considered Btrfs for this new NAS. What made me decide to use ZFS instead is that Btrfs does not have [yet] transparent encryption, I'd need to use dm-crypt/LUKS. ZFS has that natively, so :shrug: When transparent encryption lands on Btrfs, I may consider it for new machines (or Bcachefs if it gets back in the Linux Kernel).