Testing Out The Btrfs Mount Options On Linux 3.2
Phoronix: Testing Out The Btrfs Mount Options On Linux 3.2
Earlier this month I benchmarked all the major Linux file-systems of Ubuntu 12.04: ReiserFS, JFS, EXT2, EXT3, EXT4, Btrfs, and XFS. While Btrfs performed well with Ubuntu 12.04 LTS, it was not always the fastest although it does offer the most advanced feature-set. For those looking to tune a Btrfs file-system for performance, published now are some reference benchmarks showing the Linux Btrfs performance with varying mount options.
Zlib and LZO tests are flawed
The Zlib and LZO compression tests are flawed as the FS-MARK creates empty files which obviously get near perfect compression, of course there are lots of text files on Linux system that will benefit from that but in most cases it won't benefit at all. So it is either write down WHY the LZO/ZLIB are so fast or modify FS-MARK to use some media files that won't get compressed much (or the I/O TESTER as well).
iozone not including fsync in calc times
Michael, would you consider adding the '-e' option to the iozone test definition for pts so fsync is forced and included in calculation times?
When running an Iozone write test, Zlib and LZO compression led to significantly higher results, albeit it was using compression and mostly came down to being run in the system memory at speeds not sustainable by the SATA SSD.
BTRFS worse than EXT4 for both speed and reliability
OK, so let's talk reliability. As it stands, BTRFS is much more prone to corruption and gradual degradation of speed and even available free spance than EXT4. Just look at all the reports of people saying BTRFS becomes unusable after a a few days of running. The fact is that for the vast majority of desktop users, BTRFS still has no advantage over EXT4.
Originally Posted by kebabbert