Page 1 of 3 123 LastLast
Results 1 to 10 of 27

Thread: Samsung Introduces New Linux File-System: F2FS

  1. #1
    Join Date
    Jan 2007
    Posts
    14,654

    Default Samsung Introduces New Linux File-System: F2FS

    Phoronix: Samsung Introduces New Linux File-System: F2FS

    Announced this morning on the kernel mailing list was F2FS, a new open-source Linux file-system that comes courtesy of Samsung...

    http://www.phoronix.com/vr.php?view=MTE5OTY

  2. #2
    Join Date
    May 2012
    Posts
    782

    Default

    Another filesystem..

    offtopic: why does it take (much) longer to delete files on Linux filesystems than on window$' Fat32/NTFS? Even from Linux deleting from the fat32/ntfs happens quickly, while on ext4/btrs it's like 10-100 times slower.

  3. #3
    Join Date
    Sep 2008
    Location
    Vilnius, Lithuania
    Posts
    2,542

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by mark45 View Post
    offtopic: why does it take (much) longer to delete files on Linux filesystems than on window$' Fat32/NTFS? Even from Linux deleting from the fat32/ntfs happens quickly, while on ext4/btrs it's like 10-100 times slower.
    As in takes 1 second as opposed to 0.1 seconds?

  4. #4
    Join Date
    Dec 2010
    Location
    MA, USA
    Posts
    1,277

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by mark45 View Post
    Another filesystem..

    offtopic: why does it take (much) longer to delete files on Linux filesystems than on window$' Fat32/NTFS? Even from Linux deleting from the fat32/ntfs happens quickly, while on ext4/btrs it's like 10-100 times slower.
    Perhaps journaling has something to do with it.


    I too am rolling my eyes at another FS. Seriously why are all of these new ones being made? We need to get rid of others and combine them with the currently best ones. btrfs is really the only new FS that shouldn't be discarded since it seems to combine every feature of every FS known. Doesn't it even have an option for flash memory?

  5. #5
    Join Date
    Feb 2008
    Location
    Linuxland
    Posts
    5,072

    Default

    Unlike lanyardfs, this one actually has a point. It'll maximize the life of the flash.

    btrfs will not do that. Any generic fs will not do that.

  6. #6
    Join Date
    May 2012
    Posts
    782

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by GreatEmerald View Post
    As in takes 1 second as opposed to 0.1 seconds?
    Well frankly, sometimes it's even worse, it might take 3-4 seconds to delete a few files worth of like 6GB, while on a window$ system it takes less than a second to do the same thing, often in a blink of an eye.

  7. #7
    Join Date
    Mar 2012
    Posts
    122

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by mark45 View Post
    Well frankly, sometimes it's even worse, it might take 3-4 seconds to delete a few files worth of like 6GB, while on a window$ system it takes less than a second to do the same thing, often in a blink of an eye.
    My windows doesn't delete 6GB of data instantly (not saying yours doesn't, but mines doesn't). Sure, it'll move it to the bin quickly, but if I ask for an actual delete, I'll need to wait a few seconds.

  8. #8
    Join Date
    Jul 2012
    Posts
    747

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by curaga View Post
    Unlike lanyardfs, this one actually has a point. It'll maximize the life of the flash.

    btrfs will not do that. Any generic fs will not do that.
    Trying to maximize flash lifetime is a worthless effort. Try writing a SSD to death withing 10 years.
    http://www.xtremesystems.org/forums/...e-25nm-Vs-34nm

    No one is ever going to write that much on an SSD on a daily basis that you exceed 1 PB host write.

    A very common SSD (Crucial M4) has surpassed 750 TB host write. Spread it over 10 years (3650 Days) and you'd have
    to write over 200 GB (the drive itself will have either 128 or 256 GB capacity) per day every day for 10 years and it will still function.
    SSDs can take a lot of shit contrary to popular belief.
    Last edited by blackout23; 10-05-2012 at 10:24 AM.

  9. #9
    Join Date
    Oct 2009
    Posts
    2,086

    Default

    I've always found wondoze file deletes to be be incredibly slow. With Linux, you can delete a 500 GB file in a fraction of a second -- erase the inode and ignore the file, which is suddenly and thoroughly deallocated.

    Now when you're dealing with MANY MANY MANY files, it can start to take a little longer, because it has to scan through, sort, and delete individually using a recursive algo. This could be more a limitation of the actual delete command than the filesystem itself.

    Also; fat32 doesn't use any form of journal. If you want to compare performance of that, try ext2 vs fat or otherwise disable the journal.

  10. #10
    Join Date
    Oct 2010
    Posts
    86

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by blackout23 View Post
    Trying to maximize flash lifetime is a worthless effort. Try writing a SSD to death withing 10 years.
    http://www.xtremesystems.org/forums/...e-25nm-Vs-34nm

    No one is ever going to write that much on an SSD on a daily basis that you exceed 1 PB host write.

    A very common SSD (Crucial M4) has surpassed 750 TB host write. Spread it over 10 years (3650 Days) and you'd have
    to write over 200 GB (the drive itself will have either 128 or 256 GB capacity) per day every day for 10 years and it will still function.
    SSDs can take a lot of shit contrary to popular belief.
    This is for flash with no wear-leveling (like you might find in cheap embedded devices), not an SSD.

Posting Permissions

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