Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

Benchmarks Of The Btrfs Space Cache Option

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

  • #16
    Like another person, I want CPU time numbers too. Fast I/O that takes an entire core or is pegged to my CPU speed is worthless to me (and most anyone that uses a low-power or dynamic power-state device, such as a laptop, mobile phone, set-top box, embedded device, etc.)

    Comment


    • #17
      Originally posted by deanjo View Post
      My guess is 2 to 3 years for most of the mainstream distros. Wouldn't be surprised if *buntu jumped on it sooner though, the tend to jump on green solutions before they are ready for primetime.
      maybe ubuntu jumping on it could speed things up a bit?

      Comment


      • #18
        Originally posted by madjr View Post
        maybe ubuntu jumping on it could speed things up a bit?
        With the amount of development that they do, I doubt it. To get it really rolling I imagine Fedora would have to default to it first before adoption would start picking up.

        Comment


        • #19
          Originally posted by deanjo View Post
          With the amount of development that they do, I doubt it. To get it really rolling I imagine Fedora would have to default to it first before adoption would start picking up.
          I assume he was referring to the bug reports that would be produced. There might be somewhat of an issue with variety of installations that the btrfs devs are receiving.

          Comment


          • #20
            Originally posted by liam View Post
            I assume he was referring to the bug reports that would be produced. There might be somewhat of an issue with variety of installations that the btrfs devs are receiving.
            Even then it is questionable. Without any real clear advantage over the current default there won't be much motivation to switch from a somewhat proven file system.

            Comment


            • #21
              Originally posted by LavosPhoenix View Post
              My only problem with btrfs is the lack of a fsck tool that actually corrects errors, otherwise btrfs was working great until something went wrong and I couldn't correct errors in it. However, does space_cache deal with the huge about of "wasted space" that a btrfs system has?
              What? ZFS does not have any "fsck" tool, it need not by design. I think it is the same with BTRFS, it need no "fsck"?

              Comment


              • #22
                Testing compression on syntethic tests is ... stupid. All this tools basically write simple patterns to files which can be easly compressed.

                Please do something more real world, like uncompressing kernel.tar.gz, or buliding kernel, or replaying real world file system operations (search for replayfs and tracefs tools).

                Comment

                Working...
                X