Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

Linux 2.6.38 EXT4, Btrfs File-System Benchmarks

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

  • Linux 2.6.38 EXT4, Btrfs File-System Benchmarks

    Phoronix: Linux 2.6.38 EXT4, Btrfs File-System Benchmarks

    Along with finally delivering Intel Gallium3D driver benchmarks comparing this unofficial, proof-of-concept i915/945 Gallium3D driver to Intel's official classic Mesa driver, there's also our benchmarks of the EXT4 and Btrfs file-systems from the Linux 2.6.38 kernel. These exclusive tests are coming this weekend as part of OpenBenchmarking.org being publicly available for the first day...

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

  • #2
    I'd really appreciate it if you could use old-fashioned mechanical disks for benchmarking at least half of the time. Considerably more people have them than SSDs, and the performance profiles are vastly different -- results measured with one have almost no relevance to the other. Thanks.

    Comment


    • #3
      reiser4?

      As usual, reiser4 is missing.

      Saddens me.

      Comment


      • #4
        didnt past benchmarks show huge improvments in btfs performonce when compression was swched on?

        Comment


        • #5
          Originally posted by ayumu View Post
          As usual, reiser4 is missing.

          Saddens me.
          Reiser4 is DOA.

          Comment


          • #6
            Originally posted by drag View Post
            Reiser4 is DOA.
            • Its current website is: https://reiser4.wiki.kernel.org/index.php/Main_Page
            • It's been ready for years.
            • It's fast: https://reiser4.wiki.kernel.org/index.php/Benchmarks
            • I've used it for years and it gives me awesome performance.
            • It's got legendary reliability: I've never lost a byte to it. I was even able to recover a lot of data from a ddrescued HD which failed pretty heavily on the hardware side of things, with only a few portions of the disk being readable.
            • It's on -mm, pending only on porting it to some non-reiser4-related-but-useful Linux vfs improvements which afaik aren't finished yet.
            How is it DOA? Care to explain?

            Comment


            • #7
              It's got legendary reliability: I've never lost a byte to it. I was even able to recover a lot of data from a ddrescued HD which failed pretty heavily on the hardware side of things, with only a few portions of the disk being readable.
              I've never lost a byte to Linux's vfat either and it's extremely fast. Does that mean it's as good as Reiserfs?

              It's on -mm, pending only on porting it to some non-reiser4-related-but-useful Linux vfs improvements which afaik aren't finished yet.
              How is it DOA? Care to explain?
              Because it's been under development since 2004 and is still in -mm tree, while a much sophisticated file system exists in the mainline kernel with far more development resources and organizations backing it.

              Comment


              • #8
                I'm not aware of any such filesystem.

                Oh. I hope you don't mean ext4 or btrfs. You can't be serious.

                Originally posted by drag View Post
                I've never lost a byte to Linux's vfat either and it's extremely fast. Does that mean it's as good as Reiserfs?



                Because it's been under development since 2004 and is still in -mm tree, while a much sophisticated file system exists in the mainline kernel with far more development resources and organizations backing it.

                Comment


                • #9
                  Originally posted by drag View Post
                  I've never lost a byte to Linux's vfat either and it's extremely fast. Does that mean it's as good as Reiserfs?
                  CS101 - p->q doesn't mean q->p....:-D

                  At least know basic computer science when you talk about computers.

                  Comment


                  • #10
                    Originally posted by devsk View Post
                    CS101 - p->q doesn't mean q->p....:-D

                    At least know basic computer science when you talk about computers.
                    It doesn't matter which way you read it; neither one usefully substantiates the reliability of a filesystem.

                    Comment

                    Working...
                    X