Results 1 to 10 of 10

Thread: Linux 2.6.39: XFS Speeds-Up, EXT4 & Btrfs Unchanged

  1. #1
    Join Date
    Jan 2007
    Posts
    14,561

    Default Linux 2.6.39: XFS Speeds-Up, EXT4 & Btrfs Unchanged

    Phoronix: Linux 2.6.39: XFS Speeds-Up, EXT4 & Btrfs Unchanged

    While we have already delivered a number of benchmarks from the Linux 2.6.39 kernel, surprisingly we have not yet published any new file-system benchmarks from this latest stable Linux kernel release. Fortunately, that has changed today with a fresh round of Btrfs, EXT4, and XFS file-system benchmarks on the Linux 2.6.39 kernel and compared to the preceding 2.6.38 and 2.6.37 kernel releases.

    http://www.phoronix.com/vr.php?view=16053

  2. #2
    Join Date
    Sep 2008
    Posts
    130

    Default

    Normally people (like myself) complain if they are unhappy with the article.

    So, this time I'd like to say that this was a good article. You provided some useful explanations, and also linked to the optimizations at the end which was informative

    Thanks!

  3. #3
    Join Date
    Mar 2011
    Posts
    43

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by yesterday View Post
    Normally people (like myself) complain if they are unhappy with the article.

    So, this time I'd like to say that this was a good article. You provided some useful explanations, and also linked to the optimizations at the end which was informative

    Thanks!
    Amazing. This is the first time I've ever seen a comment on Phoronix saying they liked an article. I'm so used to seeing nothing pure hatred in every article comment. Maybe there is hope after all.

  4. #4
    Join Date
    May 2011
    Location
    Canada
    Posts
    4

    Default Multicore CPU Usage

    I have a hexacore now so I'm interested in a filesystem that makes good use of multiple cores. Would btrfs be much faster with compression enabled if a system had many cores? Could the compression/decompression be done by a GPU?

  5. #5
    Join Date
    Aug 2009
    Location
    south east
    Posts
    342

    Default

    Remember the Commodore VIC 20
    http://oldcomputers.net/vic20.html

    For some reason I was sitting here reading this excellent article and was reminded of the VIC 20.

  6. #6
    Join Date
    Nov 2008
    Location
    Madison, WI, USA
    Posts
    864

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by flammon View Post
    I have a hexacore now so I'm interested in a filesystem that makes good use of multiple cores. Would btrfs be much faster with compression enabled if a system had many cores? Could the compression/decompression be done by a GPU?
    It's possible that the compression could be offloaded to another core(s) or a GPU, but compression is often a fairly serial process, so depending on the algorithm, you'd probably not get much of a speedup.

    Also, for the small block sizes being compressed, you'd probably not benefit from GPU compression/decompression as the round trip to the GPU and the computation startup/finish costs would probably exceed any time benefit from the parallelism you might be able to extract.

    Offloading the compression/decompression to a separate thread on the CPU might be possible, and that's where I'd probably start poking around (if they're not already doing this).

  7. #7

    Default jfs

    JFS is omitted from the comparison again
    What is the reason for this? Isn't it as popular as XFS?

  8. #8
    Join Date
    Jul 2010
    Posts
    69

    Default

    Wow, really good and specific article. Thankks.

    Also congratulations to xfs developers for improving xfs so much

  9. #9
    Join Date
    May 2007
    Location
    Third Rock from the Sun
    Posts
    6,583

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by danny.archer View Post
    JFS is omitted from the comparison again
    What is the reason for this? Isn't it as popular as XFS?
    JFS is a dieing filesystem. Even IBM isn't interested in maintaining it anymore and the one IBM employee that is more or less keeping an eye on it ("very part time") to fix bugs recommends not using it for production environments.

  10. #10

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by deanjo View Post
    JFS is a dieing filesystem. Even IBM isn't interested in maintaining it anymore and the one IBM employee that is more or less keeping an eye on it ("very part time") to fix bugs recommends not using it for production environments.
    damn, that's too bad, I'm quite fond of JFS. I've just switched to a new hard drive and all the partitions are JFS, previous hard drive had also XFS. I've managed to avoid EXT3&4

    *sigh*

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
  •