Page 1 of 2 12 LastLast
Results 1 to 10 of 11

Thread: Benchmarking Linux 3.16 File-Systems On An SSD

  1. #1
    Join Date
    Jan 2007
    Posts
    15,437

    Default Benchmarking Linux 3.16 File-Systems On An SSD

    Phoronix: Benchmarking Linux 3.16 File-Systems On An SSD

    With the Linux 3.16 kernel coming along nicely, here's our first tests of this forthcoming major kernel upgrade when it comes to the mainline file-systems and their performance from a solid-state drive.

    http://www.phoronix.com/vr.php?view=20631

  2. #2
    Join Date
    Dec 2011
    Posts
    125

    Default

    Nice... each new kernel version has consistently been slower than the last (for ext4, at least). Guess I'll get a huge FS performance boost by reverting to 3.10 or older

  3. #3
    Join Date
    Jun 2013
    Posts
    10

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by phoronix View Post
    Phoronix: Benchmarking Linux 3.16 File-Systems On An SSD

    With the Linux 3.16 kernel coming along nicely, here's our first tests of this forthcoming major kernel upgrade when it comes to the mainline file-systems and their performance from a solid-state drive.

    http://www.phoronix.com/vr.php?view=20631
    Personally, not really sure if we need these benchmarks per kernel, unless some significant changes are made to the filesystem code or the kernel code.

    Maybe one way to make them more relevant would be to also test battery usage of the Filesystems too, unless there is a HUGE regression in performance

  4. #4
    Join Date
    Jan 2013
    Posts
    245

    Default

    Is F2FS a legitimate choice on a full on desktop SSD? I thought it was for SD cards and embedded memory in Android phones and the like? What's the current thinking with regards to stability?

  5. #5
    Join Date
    Dec 2013
    Location
    Pforzheim, Germany
    Posts
    9

    Default f2fs

    Quote Originally Posted by kaprikawn View Post
    Is F2FS a legitimate choice on a full on desktop SSD? I thought it was for SD cards and embedded memory in Android phones and the like? What's the current thinking with regards to stability?
    My experience is: F2FS is stable if and only if it's always (!) unmounted clearly. If not (i.e. if you unplug the flash card without unmounting first), the FS soon gets corrupted, and fsck.f2fs is mostly not capable of repairing it: In the case of a corrupted FS, it aborts with assert statements.

  6. #6
    Join Date
    Feb 2014
    Posts
    39

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Auzy View Post
    Personally, not really sure if we need these benchmarks per kernel, unless some significant changes are made to the filesystem code or the kernel code.
    The performance of some area of the kernel depends on many things. The radeon performance, for instance, boosted with changes on the CPU frequency scheduler. Thanks to these benchmarks, at least it can be noted if, after the storm of commits, the butterfly created a hurricane.

    (As for halo9en's comments: I thought the same!)

  7. #7
    Join Date
    Jan 2008
    Posts
    144

    Default Why not test Btrfs instead of F2FS?

    Why not test Btrfs instead of (or in addition to) F2FS? Btrfs is much more relevant for desktops, and dare I say more exciting in terms of features.

  8. #8
    Join Date
    Dec 2007
    Posts
    137

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by stan View Post
    Why not test Btrfs instead of (or in addition to) F2FS? Btrfs is much more relevant for desktops, and dare I say more exciting in terms of features.
    The article states that Btfs was skipped this round because it is too unstable in the 3.16 snapshot that Michael used.

  9. #9
    Join Date
    Jan 2008
    Posts
    144

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Pseus View Post
    The article states that Btfs was skipped this round because it is too unstable in the 3.16 snapshot that Michael used.
    Dope, my bad. Thanks for pointing out the obvious for me

  10. #10

    Default

    Here's your new Linux kernel: here's a number of new regressions. We, Linux developer, love regressions ;-)

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •