Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

Samsung Introduces New Linux File-System: F2FS

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

  • Samsung Introduces New Linux File-System: F2FS

    Phoronix: Samsung Introduces New Linux File-System: F2FS

    Announced this morning on the kernel mailing list was F2FS, a new open-source Linux file-system that comes courtesy of Samsung...

    http://www.phoronix.com/vr.php?view=MTE5OTY

  • #2
    Another filesystem..

    offtopic: why does it take (much) longer to delete files on Linux filesystems than on window$' Fat32/NTFS? Even from Linux deleting from the fat32/ntfs happens quickly, while on ext4/btrs it's like 10-100 times slower.

    Comment


    • #3
      Originally posted by mark45 View Post
      offtopic: why does it take (much) longer to delete files on Linux filesystems than on window$' Fat32/NTFS? Even from Linux deleting from the fat32/ntfs happens quickly, while on ext4/btrs it's like 10-100 times slower.
      As in takes 1 second as opposed to 0.1 seconds?

      Comment


      • #4
        Originally posted by mark45 View Post
        Another filesystem..

        offtopic: why does it take (much) longer to delete files on Linux filesystems than on window$' Fat32/NTFS? Even from Linux deleting from the fat32/ntfs happens quickly, while on ext4/btrs it's like 10-100 times slower.
        Perhaps journaling has something to do with it.


        I too am rolling my eyes at another FS. Seriously why are all of these new ones being made? We need to get rid of others and combine them with the currently best ones. btrfs is really the only new FS that shouldn't be discarded since it seems to combine every feature of every FS known. Doesn't it even have an option for flash memory?

        Comment


        • #5
          Unlike lanyardfs, this one actually has a point. It'll maximize the life of the flash.

          btrfs will not do that. Any generic fs will not do that.

          Comment


          • #6
            Originally posted by GreatEmerald View Post
            As in takes 1 second as opposed to 0.1 seconds?
            Well frankly, sometimes it's even worse, it might take 3-4 seconds to delete a few files worth of like 6GB, while on a window$ system it takes less than a second to do the same thing, often in a blink of an eye.

            Comment


            • #7
              Originally posted by mark45 View Post
              Well frankly, sometimes it's even worse, it might take 3-4 seconds to delete a few files worth of like 6GB, while on a window$ system it takes less than a second to do the same thing, often in a blink of an eye.
              My windows doesn't delete 6GB of data instantly (not saying yours doesn't, but mines doesn't). Sure, it'll move it to the bin quickly, but if I ask for an actual delete, I'll need to wait a few seconds.

              Comment


              • #8
                Originally posted by curaga View Post
                Unlike lanyardfs, this one actually has a point. It'll maximize the life of the flash.

                btrfs will not do that. Any generic fs will not do that.
                Trying to maximize flash lifetime is a worthless effort. Try writing a SSD to death withing 10 years.
                http://www.xtremesystems.org/forums/...e-25nm-Vs-34nm

                No one is ever going to write that much on an SSD on a daily basis that you exceed 1 PB host write.

                A very common SSD (Crucial M4) has surpassed 750 TB host write. Spread it over 10 years (3650 Days) and you'd have
                to write over 200 GB (the drive itself will have either 128 or 256 GB capacity) per day every day for 10 years and it will still function.
                SSDs can take a lot of shit contrary to popular belief.
                Last edited by blackout23; 10-05-2012, 10:24 AM.

                Comment


                • #9
                  I've always found wondoze file deletes to be be incredibly slow. With Linux, you can delete a 500 GB file in a fraction of a second -- erase the inode and ignore the file, which is suddenly and thoroughly deallocated.

                  Now when you're dealing with MANY MANY MANY files, it can start to take a little longer, because it has to scan through, sort, and delete individually using a recursive algo. This could be more a limitation of the actual delete command than the filesystem itself.

                  Also; fat32 doesn't use any form of journal. If you want to compare performance of that, try ext2 vs fat or otherwise disable the journal.

                  Comment


                  • #10
                    Originally posted by blackout23 View Post
                    Trying to maximize flash lifetime is a worthless effort. Try writing a SSD to death withing 10 years.
                    http://www.xtremesystems.org/forums/...e-25nm-Vs-34nm

                    No one is ever going to write that much on an SSD on a daily basis that you exceed 1 PB host write.

                    A very common SSD (Crucial M4) has surpassed 750 TB host write. Spread it over 10 years (3650 Days) and you'd have
                    to write over 200 GB (the drive itself will have either 128 or 256 GB capacity) per day every day for 10 years and it will still function.
                    SSDs can take a lot of shit contrary to popular belief.
                    This is for flash with no wear-leveling (like you might find in cheap embedded devices), not an SSD.

                    Comment

                    Working...
                    X