Results 1 to 10 of 66

Thread: Large HDD/SSD Linux 2.6.38 File-System Comparison

Hybrid View

  1. #1
    Join Date
    Jan 2007
    Posts
    15,102

    Default Large HDD/SSD Linux 2.6.38 File-System Comparison

    Phoronix: Large HDD/SSD Linux 2.6.38 File-System Comparison

    Here are the results from our largest Linux file-system comparison to date. Using the soon-to-be-released Linux 2.6.38 kernel, on a SATA hard drive and solid-state drive, we benchmarked seven file-systems on each drive with the latest kernel code as of this past weekend. The tested file-systems include EXT3, EXT4, Btrfs, XFS, JFS, ReiserFS, and NILFS2.

    http://www.phoronix.com/vr.php?view=15771

  2. #2
    Join Date
    Jan 2008
    Posts
    138

    Default BTRFS sucks for most relevant benchmarks - SQL

    Why does BTRFS suck so much for the SQL benchmark that matter most to desktop users (ie. can be directly traced to the performance of firefox's website database)?

  3. #3
    Join Date
    Jan 2009
    Posts
    80

    Default

    Ext3 has barrier=0 as default? Really? Seems strange.

    Isn't that a distro-specific thing, though, default mount options?

  4. #4
    Join Date
    Sep 2009
    Posts
    20

    Default

    I'm not sure if the inclusion of a plain HDD was per my request, but either way, thanks. The results were similar on some tests, but also very different on some others, so I think it's a good idea to keep doing it.

    (I would assume the ones where the differences were greatest are the most seek-heavy workloads, which also seem like the ones it's most important to optimize in the mechanical HDD case.)

  5. #5
    Join Date
    Jan 2009
    Posts
    80

    Default

    I get confused about all these different benchmarks. Is there a description of all the profiles somewhere? The names of the benchmarks are certainly not very descriptive. For example, for me the main factors in IO performance are:

    1) Random write/read of small files (this is 90% operations of a desktop user).
    2) Sequential write/read speed (you are copying/moving files)
    3) Parallel sequential write/read speed (you are copying two big files at once -- ideally the combined speed should be the same as (2), but in reality it is often much lower)

    Which benchmarks do I need to peruse to find out how the filesystems do in the described workloads?

  6. #6

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by loonyphoenix View Post
    I get confused about all these different benchmarks. Is there a description of all the profiles somewhere?
    http://openbenchmarking.org/tests/pts

  7. #7
    Join Date
    May 2007
    Location
    Third Rock from the Sun
    Posts
    6,584

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by loonyphoenix View Post
    Ext3 has barrier=0 as default? Really? Seems strange.

    Isn't that a distro-specific thing, though, default mount options?
    The only distro that I know of that has barriers enabled by default on EXT3 is SuSE/openSUSE.

  8. #8
    Join Date
    Feb 2009
    Posts
    22

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by deanjo View Post
    The only distro that I know of that has barriers enabled by default on EXT3 is SuSE/openSUSE.
    I am fairly sure that that Red Hat enabled barriers by default in RHEL 6, and although I'm not 100% sure, I believe in recent Fedora releases as well. My source on this is Ric Wheeler, formerly of EMC and who is now the file system manager at Red Hat.

    -- Ted

Tags for this Thread

Posting Permissions

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