Page 1 of 7 123 ... LastLast
Results 1 to 10 of 66

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

  1. #1
    Join Date
    Jan 2007
    Posts
    15,434

    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
    144

    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
    Jan 2009
    Posts
    80

    Default

    Thanks! (character limit...)

  8. #8
    Join Date
    Jul 2008
    Posts
    1,731

    Default

    ext3 always was, always will be, optizimed for benchmarks with default settings.

    These default settings are completely idiotic. They risk the data of the user. But that does not count. For ext3 devs it is more important to have good numbers when somebody does a standard test without leveling the field via mount options.

    Now, turn on barriers for everybody and see ext3 die a slow death.

  9. #9
    Join Date
    Feb 2008
    Location
    Linuxland
    Posts
    5,286

    Default

    Thanks for finally including JFS. It's surprisingly fast on a SSD.

  10. #10
    Join Date
    Oct 2010
    Posts
    9

    Default

    On CentOS and according to the ext4 doc, the mount option 'discard' is off by default and should probably be turned on for SSD testing to take advantage of TRIM support.

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
  •