Page 2 of 3 FirstFirst 123 LastLast
Results 11 to 20 of 27

Thread: Google To Switch To EXT4, Hires Ted To Code

  1. #11

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by apaige View Post
    It would have carried a bit more weight had you mentionned that in the part I quoted. Also, [citation needed]
    Clarification added.

  2. #12
    Join Date
    Nov 2007
    Location
    Die trolls, die!
    Posts
    525

    Default

    deleted - it was unfair of me to say this.

    @ Phoronix - Keep up the good work, but please do not suggest that the PTS was used when other benchmarking apps used were listed, but not PTS.
    Last edited by bugmenot; 01-15-2010 at 09:49 AM.

  3. #13
    Join Date
    Jan 2010
    Location
    Transylvania
    Posts
    2

    Default

    With the Linux 2.6.32 kernel, EXT4 lost much ground while Btrfs gained and before that a single commit severely dampened the FS performance.
    It became so slow on my machine that sometimes my friggin cursor freezes.

    ...the performance of EXT4 is looking to be even worse with the forthcoming Linux 2.6.33 kernel.
    oh boy...

    Sometimes I regret switching from ReiserFS.

  4. #14
    Join Date
    Jul 2008
    Posts
    565

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by wooptoo View Post
    Sometimes I regret switching from ReiserFS.
    So shrink it or use another drive with RFS and compare the two or do a benchmark. Also, note the differences in features, and then decide overall which you prefer.

    Let us know. :P

  5. #15
    Join Date
    Jun 2009
    Posts
    58

    Default

    Google's Michael Rubin shared that they chose EXT4 after benchmarking it as well as XFS and JFS (possibly with our Phoronix Test Suite carrying out some of the testing, which they have used in other areas).
    I'm surprised they didn't choose ext3 on ubuntu.

  6. #16
    Join Date
    Mar 2008
    Posts
    205

    Default

    ext4 is safe, probably not fast.

    That being said, where I used to work they *still* use reiserfs3. JFS & XFS just flat aren't stable, they aren't dependable under hardware failure or conditions of power failure (wall or ups, take your pick). The biggest beef I had in the past with the ext? series is the time to fsck is extremely excessive. reiserfs even with rebuild-tree could be back online dramatically sooner than ext? with 16 drive raid6's.

    I haven't run ext4, I'm assuming the time to fsck hasn't improved much.

  7. #17
    Join Date
    Oct 2009
    Location
    .ca
    Posts
    399

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by bnolsen View Post
    I haven't run ext4, I'm assuming the time to fsck hasn't improved much.
    I think that is something that was actually significantly improved.

  8. #18
    Join Date
    Jan 2008
    Posts
    772

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by bnolsen View Post
    reiserfs even with rebuild-tree could be back online dramatically sooner than ext? with 16 drive raid6's
    It might be fast, but it also has some pretty serious shortcomings (e.g. merging files from ReiserFS images into the filesystem itself). Reiser himself acknowledged this (his solution: ReiserFS v3 is obsolete, use Reiser4).

  9. #19
    Join Date
    Oct 2007
    Location
    Under the bridge
    Posts
    2,126

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by bnolsen View Post
    I haven't run ext4, I'm assuming the time to fsck hasn't improved much.
    Actually, fsck is many orders of magnitude faster on ext4 compared to ext3. It completes in ~3 seconds on my 80GB SSD and ~15 seconds on my 1TB disk (versus several minutes on 1TB/ext3).

  10. #20

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by bnolsen View Post
    ext4 is safe, probably not fast.
    ...the performance of EXT4 is looking to be even worse with the forthcoming Linux 2.6.33 kernel.
    It would be great to see some more meaningful file systems benchmarks like: copying, creating, deleting files and directories and random reads, writes times rather then some apache, sqlite benchmarks etc.
    Last edited by kraftman; 01-18-2010 at 07:56 AM.

Posting Permissions

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