Page 1 of 4 123 ... LastLast
Results 1 to 10 of 31

Thread: Ubuntu 12.04 LTS - Benchmarking All The Linux File-Systems

  1. #1
    Join Date
    Jan 2007
    Posts
    14,894

    Default Ubuntu 12.04 LTS - Benchmarking All The Linux File-Systems

    Phoronix: Ubuntu 12.04 LTS - Benchmarking All The Linux File-Systems

    When running Linux file-system benchmarks at Phoronix it is most often a comparison of EXT4 vs. Btrfs, since they are the "hot" Linux file-systems at the moment. Sometimes others like ZFS, Reiser4, and XFS also join the party. In this article is a look at all of the Linux file-systems with install-time support under the forthcoming Ubuntu 12.04 LTS. When carrying out clean installations each time with changing out the root file-system and using the default mount options, ReiserFS, JFS, EXT2, EXT3, EXT4, Btrfs, and XFS are all being compared in this article.

    http://www.phoronix.com/vr.php?view=17164

  2. #2
    Join Date
    Feb 2012
    Posts
    70

    Default skewed charts

    the FS that do not support fsync on some benches should be removed from the final chart as they do nothing except skew the charts and mar the chart scale.


    AFAIK, ubuntu 11.10 can not boot from a btrfs partition without having the /boot on a ext2/3/4 partition.

    Also, for future BTRFS articles, can you give a small tutorial on how to set up a btrfs compressed partition during install? i am a linux noob and cant find any good tutorial for this.
    Last edited by mayankleoboy1; 03-16-2012 at 02:54 AM.

  3. #3
    Join Date
    Dec 2009
    Posts
    492

    Default

    Nice test. Please test the same on a traditional HDD, that would offer a much more complete image, I think.

  4. #4
    Join Date
    Mar 2008
    Posts
    208

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by bug77 View Post
    Nice test. Please test the same on a traditional HDD, that would offer a much more complete image, I think.
    Yes agreed entirely. I haven't found any reason yet to go SSD, I prefer the extra storage and don't like the extra cost. That and linux is much friendlier on disk access than windows is.

  5. #5
    Join Date
    Jul 2007
    Posts
    100

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by bnolsen View Post
    Yes agreed entirely. I haven't found any reason yet to go SSD, I prefer the extra storage and don't like the extra cost. That and linux is much friendlier on disk access than windows is.
    I took the leap when Intel released a (relatively) cheap 40GB SSD, never looked back since. The difference in remarkable. The damn thing boots so quick you don't see the ubuntu splash screen. Put a big hard disk in for storage (or shove it on the network in a cupboard).

    And my SSDs not even "fast" any more, there's disks out there that do small random writes at a quarter gig a second.

    Just remember to learn how to align your partitions and choose your fstab options correctly (link), as all that stuff doesn't work automatically yet and it makes a huge difference in performance.

  6. #6
    Join Date
    Jan 2007
    Location
    Germany
    Posts
    2,148

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by bnolsen View Post
    Yes agreed entirely. I haven't found any reason yet to go SSD, I prefer the extra storage and don't like the extra cost. That and linux is much friendlier on disk access than windows is.
    I bought a SSD in 2010. Once you go there, you can't go back.

    Of course only for the system/applications/games. I have 2TB hard drives for storage.

  7. #7

    Default MLC vs SLC

    Yes, there are "cheap" SSD disks nowadays, but they use MLC chips, that are slower and have a short life (short number or writes before fail). In 2 or 3 years you could have problems with a SSD MLC disk. SLC have a much longer life (large number or writes before fail) and are a lot quicker, but they are much more costly per Gb. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Multi-level_cell

  8. #8
    Join Date
    Dec 2009
    Posts
    492

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by d2kx View Post
    I bought a SSD in 2010. Once you go there, you can't go back.

    Of course only for the system/applications/games. I have 2TB hard drives for storage.
    True, but what I was hinting at, is that the best FS for SSD might not be the best for HDD as well. So you might need to mix and match, if Michael is kind enough to provide us with the data.

  9. #9
    Join Date
    Feb 2012
    Posts
    8

    Default Software Raid Testing?

    Future mount option testing is good but testing of software raid 5/6 md5 w/ ext4 vs the Btrfs code (contributed by Intel(?)) would be great. I recall a several year old balanced server IDF topic in which an Intel guy noted that md5 software raid 5 requires lots of memory bandwidth. Did they do better?

  10. #10
    Join Date
    Dec 2009
    Posts
    492

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by dealcorn View Post
    Future mount option testing is good but testing of software raid 5/6 md5 w/ ext4 vs the Btrfs code (contributed by Intel(?)) would be great. I recall a several year old balanced server IDF topic in which an Intel guy noted that md5 software raid 5 requires lots of memory bandwidth. Did they do better?
    Raid is not something you'd want to do with SSDs. You lose TRIM.

Posting Permissions

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