Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

Ubuntu 12.04 LTS - Benchmarking All The Linux File-Systems

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

  • Ubuntu 12.04 LTS - Benchmarking All The Linux File-Systems

    Phoronix: Ubuntu 12.04 LTS - Benchmarking All The Linux File-Systems

    When running Linux file-system benchmarks at Phoronix it is most often a comparison of EXT4 vs. Btrfs, since they are the "hot" Linux file-systems at the moment. Sometimes others like ZFS, Reiser4, and XFS also join the party. In this article is a look at all of the Linux file-systems with install-time support under the forthcoming Ubuntu 12.04 LTS. When carrying out clean installations each time with changing out the root file-system and using the default mount options, ReiserFS, JFS, EXT2, EXT3, EXT4, Btrfs, and XFS are all being compared in this article.

    http://www.phoronix.com/vr.php?view=17164

  • #2
    skewed charts

    the FS that do not support fsync on some benches should be removed from the final chart as they do nothing except skew the charts and mar the chart scale.


    AFAIK, ubuntu 11.10 can not boot from a btrfs partition without having the /boot on a ext2/3/4 partition.

    Also, for future BTRFS articles, can you give a small tutorial on how to set up a btrfs compressed partition during install? i am a linux noob and cant find any good tutorial for this.
    Last edited by mayankleoboy1; 03-16-2012, 02:54 AM.

    Comment


    • #3
      Nice test. Please test the same on a traditional HDD, that would offer a much more complete image, I think.

      Comment


      • #4
        Originally posted by bug77 View Post
        Nice test. Please test the same on a traditional HDD, that would offer a much more complete image, I think.
        Yes agreed entirely. I haven't found any reason yet to go SSD, I prefer the extra storage and don't like the extra cost. That and linux is much friendlier on disk access than windows is.

        Comment


        • #5
          Originally posted by bnolsen View Post
          Yes agreed entirely. I haven't found any reason yet to go SSD, I prefer the extra storage and don't like the extra cost. That and linux is much friendlier on disk access than windows is.
          I took the leap when Intel released a (relatively) cheap 40GB SSD, never looked back since. The difference in remarkable. The damn thing boots so quick you don't see the ubuntu splash screen. Put a big hard disk in for storage (or shove it on the network in a cupboard).

          And my SSDs not even "fast" any more, there's disks out there that do small random writes at a quarter gig a second.

          Just remember to learn how to align your partitions and choose your fstab options correctly (link), as all that stuff doesn't work automatically yet and it makes a huge difference in performance.

          Comment


          • #6
            Originally posted by bnolsen View Post
            Yes agreed entirely. I haven't found any reason yet to go SSD, I prefer the extra storage and don't like the extra cost. That and linux is much friendlier on disk access than windows is.
            I bought a SSD in 2010. Once you go there, you can't go back.

            Of course only for the system/applications/games. I have 2TB hard drives for storage.

            Comment


            • #7
              MLC vs SLC

              Yes, there are "cheap" SSD disks nowadays, but they use MLC chips, that are slower and have a short life (short number or writes before fail). In 2 or 3 years you could have problems with a SSD MLC disk. SLC have a much longer life (large number or writes before fail) and are a lot quicker, but they are much more costly per Gb. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Multi-level_cell

              Comment


              • #8
                Originally posted by d2kx View Post
                I bought a SSD in 2010. Once you go there, you can't go back.

                Of course only for the system/applications/games. I have 2TB hard drives for storage.
                True, but what I was hinting at, is that the best FS for SSD might not be the best for HDD as well. So you might need to mix and match, if Michael is kind enough to provide us with the data.

                Comment


                • #9
                  Software Raid Testing?

                  Future mount option testing is good but testing of software raid 5/6 md5 w/ ext4 vs the Btrfs code (contributed by Intel(?)) would be great. I recall a several year old balanced server IDF topic in which an Intel guy noted that md5 software raid 5 requires lots of memory bandwidth. Did they do better?

                  Comment


                  • #10
                    Originally posted by dealcorn View Post
                    Future mount option testing is good but testing of software raid 5/6 md5 w/ ext4 vs the Btrfs code (contributed by Intel(?)) would be great. I recall a several year old balanced server IDF topic in which an Intel guy noted that md5 software raid 5 requires lots of memory bandwidth. Did they do better?
                    Raid is not something you'd want to do with SSDs. You lose TRIM.

                    Comment


                    • #11
                      Any way you could include nilfs2 in these?

                      Comment


                      • #12
                        These results mirror my experiences with BtrFS a couple of years ago - it seemed to get slower and slower and eventually made starting Chromium painful - this was with compression switched on

                        Comment


                        • #13
                          Stay tuned for more benchmark results, including when testing each of the Btrfs mount options on Ubuntu 12.04.
                          YES! Do want! Could you also include different mount options to EXT4 for comparison to different BTRFS mount options? I don't know what good ones there are, but i'm sure there are some optimization options.

                          Please test the same on a traditional HDD
                          Was thinking the same thing when reading the article

                          best FS for SSD might not be the best for HDD as well
                          Very good point! I plan to get an SSD in the future which will work along side a storage HDD. However, it should be kept in mind that there is no single answer to global answer to this question. It will depend on the functions primarily performed on the storage device.

                          Comment


                          • #14
                            yes I had similar experineces with btrfs, getting slower and slower, and after I tried to update to ubuntu 12.04 beta I could not get it to boot anymore, not shure maybe it had something to do with efi shit I think that it was not btrfs related because it should have shown grub even if it could not access the btrfs partition because boot was on ext2, but it just said no device or something at boot try to fixing grub did not help at all, then I just reinstalled it and before that I backuped the home, but ok that was not btrfs fault I guess ^^.

                            efi shit sucks ^^.

                            I dont mean efi ^^ I mean the replacement of mbr, dont know the name right now ^^ I thinkt that was somehow the problem, I will only try that again if my system is unable to boot from good old solid 1000 year old mbr


                            But back to btrfs It also through out some mistakes when I tried to delete the old apt-btrfs images it sometimes just refused to do that and said something about errors. Because there is no fixing fsck, I will wait now a long time to go with that I think. BTW I even made some benchmarks extracting a linux kernel on the old and the new partition on the old btrfs I had at the end 15mb/s write performance (kernel extract) with ext4 (both with lvm) I have 80mb/s so btrfs should get some older before its long term usable, but again most important it did not loose the data in the volume.


                            sorry for my english, not long awake today

                            Comment


                            • #15
                              Originally posted by FourDMusic View Post
                              However, it should be kept in mind that there is no single answer to global answer to this question. It will depend on the functions primarily performed on the storage device.
                              If you use an SSD as a boot drive and HDD as storage, I would think the HDD should lean towards large, mostly sequential reads most of the time. The SSD should cover almost the entire range of operations, from large sequential reads upon startup to small, random writes for temporary files. Fortunately, SSD has both low latency and very high transfer rates. But it is good to know whether the FS can help on top of that.
                              In the end, that's all this IO, transfer rates testing is about: letting anyone infer the results for their own use cases.

                              Comment

                              Working...
                              X