An Oracle blog about ZFS Storage

  • May 30, 2013

Wikibon has a new article giving nice praise to the ZFSSA

Steve Tunstall
Principle Storage Engineer

It seems Wikibon has done some research and interviews and has written a very nice article on the awesome cost savings of the ZFSSA. 
Check it out here:


Here are some of my favorite quotes from the article:

“The high-end ZFS storage array is the highest performing
hybrid storage device that has been analyzed by Wikibon, and in a class of its
own when it comes to high write-IO environments.”

“Wikibon analyzed the architecture and performance of the
ZFS Appliance in depth, and compared it to "traditional storage
arrays" (e.g. EMC, NetApp, HDS, HP, etc. mainstream mid-market arrays) in
high write environments.”

“For an environment with 100 terabytes, 1,000,000 IOPS and
20% writes, the additional cost of the traditional system (NetApp) is 194%
higher than the hybrid system (ZFS). “

“Wikibon members should consider the ZFS Appliance in more
demanding workloads where sustained write performance and IO requirements are
higher. Examples include high performance environments such as specific backup
applications and core transaction-intensive database workloads. In these
situations, because of the hybrid design of the ZFS Appliance, customers will find
significant savings relative to traditional disk arrays that don't scale as

“CIOs, CTOs and senior storage executives should position
the Oracle ZFS appliance as an ideal strategic fit for high streaming
environments such as database backups. As well, the product can be successfully
integrated into high-performance Oracle database workloads. In write-intensive
and heavy IO workloads, the ZFS appliance will likely prove the best-of-breed,
lowest cost solution.”

“The general feedback from the ZFS appliance practitioners
was positive”

“Praise for the performance of the ZFS, particularly in
backup (high-write) environment;”

“7 gigabytes/second write rates achieved in a benchmarks;”

“11 terabytes/hour sustained over 2.5 hours for backup,
compared with 1 terabytes/hour for a traditional storage device;”

“ZFS snapshots and clones universally praised;”

“DTrace was praised for the quality and completeness of the
performance analytic tool;”

“Compression performance was strongly praised (up to 16x
compression), especially for reads;”

“None of the respondents needed to tune the ZFS read or
write caching - performance maintenance was minimal;”

“No problems with availability.” 

Be the first to comment

Comments ( 0 )
Please enter your name.Please provide a valid email address.Please enter a comment.CAPTCHA challenge response provided was incorrect. Please try again.