Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

Ubuntu 9.04 Receives EXT4 Support

Collapse
X
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • #16
    I'm excited about Solaris ZFS. Wonder how that would stack up.

    Surprising how poorly EXT3 did.

    Comment


    • #17
      i question the accuracy of benchmarks with these OCZ drives considering problems documented at http://www.anandtech.com/cpuchipsets...spx?i=3403&p=8

      Comment


      • #18
        Where can I download the ISO that was used here?
        (Preferably Kubuntu)

        Right now I'm using Alpha 2 alternate installer and it doesn't have ext4.

        Comment


        • #19
          Originally posted by clickwir View Post
          Where can I download the ISO that was used here?
          (Preferably Kubuntu)

          Right now I'm using Alpha 2 alternate installer and it doesn't have ext4.
          http://cdimage.ubuntu.com/kubuntu/daily-live/current/

          You could also wait for Alpha 3 which is arriving tomorrow, but tere shouldn't be any changes to this one really.

          Comment


          • #20
            what about data=writeback ? was that used during tests ?

            These options could noticeably affect performance.

            From Documentation/filesystems/ext4.txt

            - When comparing performance with other filesystems, remember that
            ext3/4 by default offers higher data integrity guarantees than most.
            So when comparing with a metadata-only journalling filesystem, such
            as ext3, use `mount -o data=writeback'.
            And you might as well use
            `mount -o nobh' too along with it. Making the journal larger than
            the mke2fs default often helps performance with metadata-intensive
            workloads.

            * writeback mode
            In data=writeback mode, ext4 does not journal data at all. This mode provides a similar level of journaling as that of XFS, JFS, and ReiserFS in its default mode - metadata journaling. A crash+recovery can cause incorrect data to appear in files which were written shortly before the crash. This mode will typically provide the best ext4 performance.

            Comment


            • #21
              Originally posted by d2kx View Post
              http://cdimage.ubuntu.com/kubuntu/daily-live/current/

              You could also wait for Alpha 3 which is arriving tomorrow, but tere shouldn't be any changes to this one really.
              It's called system updates....doing that would probably be faster than downloading, burning/making a USB boot drive, and installing Alpha 3 when you already have Alpha 2.

              Sillyfaces. :P

              Comment


              • #22
                xfs

                why haven't we been using xfs default?

                Comment


                • #23
                  Originally posted by broomfighter View Post
                  why haven't we been using xfs default?
                  It's tricky to use as a root FS, because you can only setup grub on it from the GRUB bootloader itself, not while running Linux with grub-install. (I keep a GRUB floppy image on a USB drive, that I can boot with syslinux's memdisk. I also have it on my PXE netboot server.)

                  Also, XFS needs to be mounted with logbsize=256k to do well all around (at least on magnetic disks). However, putting that in /etc/fstab for the root fs doesn't do anything, because for the root fs it only does a mount -o remount to try to apply the options. So if only logbsize=256k was the default on systems with plenty of RAM... (with the default logbsize=32k, IIRC, you bottleneck on journaling metadata ops any time you write a lot of small files, e.g. extracting a tar). Be sure you use a recent xfsprogs, or manually specify lazy_count=1.

                  Anyway, wow, ext4 does great on solid-state disks! I wonder what the bottlenecks are in the other filesystems... Maybe CPU usage on the Atom? I know XFS is not a small piece of code, and it's definitely tuned for massive SMP systems, but maybe not for systems with such a slow CPU, esp. relative to the I/O latency of a solid state disk.

                  Comment


                  • #24
                    JFS has the lowest CPU usage of all journaling FS..

                    Comment


                    • #25
                      I really like Ext4, very nice FS in comparison to Ext3, seems quite a lot faster. Conversion from Ext3 to 4 was easy and flawless. Rock on. ^^

                      Comment


                      • #26
                        The IOZone Write test result is rather strange... it's hard for me to believe that ext4 is 2x faster than the earlier ext2/3 versions. I wonder if delayed writes are playing havoc with the results?

                        Comment

                        Working...
                        X