Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

Btrfs File-System For Old Computers?

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

  • Btrfs File-System For Old Computers?

    Phoronix: Btrfs File-System For Old Computers?

    Recently I published benchmarks of Btrfs from a Serial ATA 3.0 SSD (the excellent OCZ Vertex 3 SSD) and those results were interesting, but most people aren't running 6Gb/s solid-state drives, so how does this next-generation file-system perform on the opposite end of the spectrum? In this article are EXT4 and Btrfs benchmarks from an old Core Duo notebook with a 5400RPM mobile hard drive.

    http://www.phoronix.com/vr.php?view=16474

  • #2
    A core2duo isn't old! Now a 4500 (or was it 4200?) RPM ide laptopdrive, now that is old!

    (Typing this from a T42 with a ide disk)

    I'm a little bummed that the most important 'safety' option has such a huge impact on performance Hopefully this will be fixed soon, as I'm going to be using this laptop for hopefully 2-3 more years.

    Comment


    • #3
      This isn't "old". It's just not high-end. If you refer to anything that's not high-end as "old", then 90% of stuff you can buy right now is "old" and is what most people are using.

      Comment


      • #4
        Originally posted by oliver View Post
        A core2duo isn't old! Now a 4500 (or was it 4200?) RPM ide laptopdrive, now that is old!
        Its not a Core 2 duo, its a core duo. There is a big difference between the two, for starters the core 2 duo is a lot faster, second its 6 years old. If you told someone you were using a p3 in 2006 they would tell you thats old crap, so yes it is old. On the other hand a core duo is still useful today, unlike a p3 would be in 2006.

        Comment


        • #5
          Originally posted by sc3252 View Post
          Its not a Core 2 duo, its a core duo. There is a big difference between the two, for starters the core 2 duo is a lot faster, second its 6 years old. If you told someone you were using a p3 in 2006 they would tell you thats old crap, so yes it is old. On the other hand a core duo is still useful today, unlike a p3 would be in 2006.
          The title is still misleading.
          When someone talks about "old computers", the usual is to picture this:
          http://www.compucanjes.com/prod_images/0000014491_1.jpg
          It usually means "crappy and utterly unusable junk".

          A core duo isn't junk. They are very useful today.
          A better example of an old computer is a P4. That's a very old processor and the limit of the obsolete.

          Comment


          • #6
            Still not old, old is the 2Ghz P4 Northwood w/ 384Mb PC2100, i845G chipset pushing a 30Gb 4200RPM HDD. Or the 800Mhz G4 PowerMac w/ 1Gb PC133, Radeon 7500 pushing a 7200 RPM HDD. Both are pretty damn old, but both are still more then usable in Linux, though they are pretty damn slow in OS X and Windows.

            Comment


            • #7
              One day computers will be useful and relevant 100 years after production.

              Comment


              • #8
                And you dub that rig "old" ?

                Come and take a look at mine
                Netrunner Linux - Rolling Release ; Nexus 5 ROM Chroma 5.1 ; NAS 6TB on FreeNAS

                Comment


                • #9
                  Originally posted by Kivada View Post
                  Still not old, old is the 2Ghz P4 Northwood w/ 384Mb PC2100, i845G chipset pushing a 30Gb 4200RPM HDD. Or the 800Mhz G4 PowerMac w/ 1Gb PC133, Radeon 7500 pushing a 7200 RPM HDD. Both are pretty damn old, but both are still more then usable in Linux, though they are pretty damn slow in OS X and Windows.
                  Does the PowerMac G4 push OS X?
                  I learned something new!
                  I believed it worked only on x86 machines. I've never been a mac user and Wikipedia busted my false belief
                  --> it worked on it until Leopard 10.5 wow

                  any mac user can tell whether it chokes the hardware, or is it responsive? Leopard on a G4, I mean
                  Netrunner Linux - Rolling Release ; Nexus 5 ROM Chroma 5.1 ; NAS 6TB on FreeNAS

                  Comment


                  • #10
                    So what kind of risks are you facing if using the "nobarrier" option?

                    From a performance standpoint it seems like it might make sense to use lzo,nobarrier with OS partitions which don't get updated that often.

                    Comment


                    • #11
                      Originally posted by bnolsen View Post
                      So what kind of risks are you facing if using the "nobarrier" option?
                      Data loss.

                      Comment


                      • #12
                        Unacceptable I guess.

                        Even the most redundant raid6 super battery backed up with UPS, you can still have a kernel panic or some other crash. Unless you have decent backups, that can get you backup fast, nobarrier seems like a non-option to me imo.

                        Comment


                        • #13
                          It depends on what you want. For some people running 'noatime' is unacceptable because the atime is data that is valuable for their specific purpose.

                          Btrfs is going to be a bit slower then Ext4 generally. Ext4 is a very fast FS, despite what the naysayers think. Especially when it comes to pure database purposes... the database uses directio which is something ext4 can be fantastic at...

                          That being said due to the features and extra levels of protection btrfs can offer then it's probably worth it to use it in the future. When btrfsck comes out then I will start taking btrfs more seriously.

                          Comment


                          • #14
                            Got to dust off my trustworthy 486DX2-66 to see what a really old computer can do
                            It would be nice to see some real world tests done by a human, like time to compress a file(s), boot time, application start-up time... you know, stuff that actually matters.

                            Comment


                            • #15
                              btrfs with default settings and 3.0.x kernel is even a joke with an intel i7. all i wanted to do was to create a new image using debian live. that was so extremely slow that i wiped out the partition after the time which would usally be enough to create an image but it was still creating the chroot with btrfs. ext4 is the way to go as long as the defaults are so stupid. its funny that the only option that gives reasonal speed in that benchmark is the least recommended one, did not try it however yet.

                              Comment

                              Working...
                              X