Page 2 of 3 FirstFirst 123 LastLast
Results 11 to 20 of 22

Thread: Benchmarks Of The Btrfs Space Cache Option

  1. #11
    Join Date
    Nov 2010
    Posts
    394

    Default

    so how long you guys think will take for btrfs to become default in most distros?

    and did the fedora guys (or whom was working on it) finish the grub integration for the snapshots?

  2. #12
    Join Date
    May 2007
    Location
    Third Rock from the Sun
    Posts
    6,532

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by madjr View Post
    so how long you guys think will take for btrfs to become default in most distros?

    and did the fedora guys (or whom was working on it) finish the grub integration for the snapshots?
    My guess is 2 to 3 years for most of the mainstream distros. Wouldn't be surprised if *buntu jumped on it sooner though, the tend to jump on green solutions before they are ready for primetime.

  3. #13
    Join Date
    Jun 2009
    Posts
    14

    Question

    What about the cpu usage differences ?

  4. #14
    Join Date
    Jul 2009
    Posts
    416

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by FireBurn View Post
    Have you done any long term analysis of the compress option?

    I used it on both my root and home partitions for a while, at the start the speed was amazing, but slowly over the course of a few months it became slower and slower

    It even started to effect the way Chrome and FireFox worked as it was taking so long to open their cache / database

    Has anyone else noticed this?

    I'm just worried that your praising the compress option because it's only been tested on clean installs and it's not being used for prolonged periods of time
    Chrome does that for me even on my ext4 machine. I had to symlink Chrome's cache to /dev/null because it gets ridiculously huge like 1.5gb and then Chrome locks up my machine for a good 3 minutes when it starts up.

    After reading this article, I should start using compress on Btrfs. Can I just enable it now, or should I reformat and start fresh. I don't know if it's good to have a mix of compressed and uncompressed.

  5. #15
    Join Date
    Aug 2007
    Location
    Europe
    Posts
    401

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by ChrisXY View Post
    Could you compare the results with same configurations but a magnetic hard disk instead of ssd?
    This may be more useful than one may think.

    If one examines the "drive ready time" timings for different hard drives, this may be a major factor. Looking at http://www.google.com/search?q=hard+...dy+time%22+sec one may see that the "drive ready time" timings may vary from 5 to 25 seconds! The Western Digital Caviar Black 2TB 6GB/sec has 21 seconds, which is not good.

    I can imagine that there is some relevance to how well the Space Cache Option performs at either end of that interval.

  6. #16
    Join Date
    Jan 2009
    Location
    Columbus, OH, USA
    Posts
    323

    Default

    Like another person, I want CPU time numbers too. Fast I/O that takes an entire core or is pegged to my CPU speed is worthless to me (and most anyone that uses a low-power or dynamic power-state device, such as a laptop, mobile phone, set-top box, embedded device, etc.)

  7. #17
    Join Date
    Nov 2010
    Posts
    394

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by deanjo View Post
    My guess is 2 to 3 years for most of the mainstream distros. Wouldn't be surprised if *buntu jumped on it sooner though, the tend to jump on green solutions before they are ready for primetime.
    maybe ubuntu jumping on it could speed things up a bit?

  8. #18
    Join Date
    May 2007
    Location
    Third Rock from the Sun
    Posts
    6,532

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by madjr View Post
    maybe ubuntu jumping on it could speed things up a bit?
    With the amount of development that they do, I doubt it. To get it really rolling I imagine Fedora would have to default to it first before adoption would start picking up.

  9. #19
    Join Date
    Jan 2009
    Posts
    1,191

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by deanjo View Post
    With the amount of development that they do, I doubt it. To get it really rolling I imagine Fedora would have to default to it first before adoption would start picking up.
    I assume he was referring to the bug reports that would be produced. There might be somewhat of an issue with variety of installations that the btrfs devs are receiving.

  10. #20
    Join Date
    May 2007
    Location
    Third Rock from the Sun
    Posts
    6,532

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by liam View Post
    I assume he was referring to the bug reports that would be produced. There might be somewhat of an issue with variety of installations that the btrfs devs are receiving.
    Even then it is questionable. Without any real clear advantage over the current default there won't be much motivation to switch from a somewhat proven file system.

Posting Permissions

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