Page 1 of 2 12 LastLast
Results 1 to 10 of 41

Thread: Linux 3.3 Kernel: Btrfs vs. EXT4

Hybrid View

  1. #1
    Join Date
    Jan 2007
    Posts
    14,371

    Default Linux 3.3 Kernel: Btrfs vs. EXT4

    Phoronix: Linux 3.3 Kernel: Btrfs vs. EXT4

    It's that time of the Linux kernel development cycle again... Here are benchmarks of the EXT4 and Btrfs file-systems with the soon-to-be-released Linux 3.3 kernel.

    http://www.phoronix.com/vr.php?view=17111

  2. #2
    Join Date
    Feb 2012
    Posts
    70

    Default Disappointed by BTRFS

    I am disappointed by the stock performance of BTRFS. It has been said to be the next standard linux file system and it cant compete with ext4.
    Is transparent compression the only saving grace of BTRFS?

  3. #3
    Join Date
    May 2008
    Posts
    43

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by mayankleoboy1 View Post
    I am disappointed by the stock performance of BTRFS. It has been said to be the next standard linux file system and it cant compete with ext4.
    Is transparent compression the only saving grace of BTRFS?
    Not sure if trolling...

    Default mount options are used. Besides, have you even looked at the features of btrfs?

  4. #4
    Join Date
    Nov 2010
    Posts
    101

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by fackamato View Post
    Not sure if trolling...

    Default mount options are used. Besides, have you even looked at the features of btrfs?
    Obviously not, if he thinks transparent compression is the only thing btrfs can do that other linux filesystems can't.

  5. #5
    Join Date
    Dec 2009
    Posts
    110

    Default

    TBH I really would like seeing a MD-RAID0+BTRFS (and maybe MD-RAID+EXT4) <-> BTRFS-RAID0 comparison, and also the same for all other levels BTRFS currently supports (i.e. 1 and 10, with 5-6 in the pipeline IIRC).

  6. #6
    Join Date
    Jan 2012
    Posts
    151

    Default Benchmarks with features

    Thanks for the update Michael on the BTRFS development. I can't wait to see her stretch her legs when she gets into the wild.

    I'd like to see more benchmarks with different features of btrfs and ext4 turned on (besides SSD mode). Not only does this provide me with information about btrfs features, but information on what I might be able to squeeze out of the file system in terms of performance for my hard disk. These types of articles, for me, are small guides on how to get my hardware to function at its best.

    I've learned a lot from your compiler/mesa optimizations. Could you extend this to your file systems benchmarks?

    ~Much appreciated!

  7. #7
    Join Date
    Sep 2006
    Posts
    714

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by mayankleoboy1 View Post
    I am disappointed by the stock performance of BTRFS. It has been said to be the next standard linux file system and it cant compete with ext4.
    Is transparent compression the only saving grace of BTRFS?
    I don't see why you should be. At least not from these benchmarks. These benchmarks are artificial and only show very specific aspects of the file system... most of which is almost entirely irrelevant to most people's use cases. They really likely have very little bearing on what it is going to be like to run them in your desktop or a production system.

    The principal advantage that Ext4 is going to have is that some of it's code is decades old and has hundred's of man-hours poured into it's development. It is very mature and there is very little that is going to surprise you with it and best practices are well established and widely known.

    Btrfs on the other hand is going to require years of in-field usage and wide scale deployment before it can compete with Ext4 with that. But what Btrfs offers is significantly enhanced ability to manage data and from a administrative standpoint this is going to be invaluable once people learn to take advantage of it.

    .. which is not visible to the filesystem, so compression still matters a lot.
    Maybe, maybe not.

    Most data people care about performance nowadays is already heavily compressed. If you care about, say, your ability to use Linux to manage multimedia files then compression is utterly irrelevant on the file system level and on the controller level. They use format-specific compression techniques and the chances of file system compression helping out is _NONE_AT_ALL_.

    Now if you are dealing with thousands of plain text files ranging in size from 2MB to multiple GBs then compression is something that is probably going to matter a lot to you. That is, of course, you are not already using gzip or whatever to compress your data.

  8. #8
    Join Date
    Jan 2009
    Posts
    1,308

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by phoronix View Post
    Phoronix: Linux 3.3 Kernel: Btrfs vs. EXT4

    It's that time of the Linux kernel development cycle again... Here are benchmarks of the EXT4 and Btrfs file-systems with the soon-to-be-released Linux 3.3 kernel.

    http://www.phoronix.com/vr.php?view=17111
    I'm very impressed with btrfs' performance.
    I can recall it being much slower than ext4 on pretty much every test, now, with stock butter, it is typically competitive.
    Presumably enabling compression would close the gap in every benchmark (obviously some more than others).
    So now, we need btrfs to have a file repair utility and online defrag for consumers.

  9. #9
    Join Date
    Jun 2008
    Posts
    76

    Default

    Anyone seen any % of compression for the different algorithms with filesystem level compression? I've seen a bunch of performance benchmarks, but none of the includes how much space you save, and I'm on an SSD so I'd be quite interested in that

  10. #10
    Join Date
    Jan 2009
    Posts
    1,308

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by neuron View Post
    Anyone seen any % of compression for the different algorithms with filesystem level compression? I've seen a bunch of performance benchmarks, but none of the includes how much space you save, and I'm on an SSD so I'd be quite interested in that
    If you're using a sandforce controller then the controller is already performing compression.

Posting Permissions

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