Page 1 of 2 12 LastLast
Results 1 to 10 of 18

Thread: F2FS File-System Shows Hope, Runs Against Btrfs & EXT4

  1. #1
    Join Date
    Jan 2007
    Posts
    14,904

    Default F2FS File-System Shows Hope, Runs Against Btrfs & EXT4

    Phoronix: F2FS File-System Shows Hope, Runs Against Btrfs & EXT4

    Being released soon is the Linux 3.8 kernel and one of its many new features is the introduction of the F2FS file-system. The "Flash-Friendly File-System" was developed by Samsung and is showing promise as a new Linux file-system designed around the characteristics of flash-based storage devices. In this article are the first benchmarks of F2FS compared to Btrfs, EXT3, EXT4, XFS, JFS, and ReiserFS file-systems.

    http://www.phoronix.com/vr.php?view=18483

  2. #2
    Join Date
    Oct 2007
    Posts
    90

    Default

    What about Tux3?

  3. #3
    Join Date
    Feb 2012
    Posts
    70

    Default

    Not fsyncing data to the "disc" is OK-ish for me. Reason : It is developed primarily for flash storage.

  4. #4
    Join Date
    Nov 2008
    Location
    Madison, WI, USA
    Posts
    874

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by mayankleoboy1 View Post
    Not fsyncing data to the "disc" is OK-ish for me. Reason : It is developed primarily for flash storage.
    Another nice thing is that this filesystem will mostly be used on devices with a battery. In theory this means that it's less likely to experience a sudden power loss. At least, most phones shut themselves down when their battery gets dangerously low. This won't protect data integrity when the kernel crashes, or the user yanks the battery, but it's something to note.

  5. #5
    Join Date
    Oct 2012
    Posts
    285

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by mayankleoboy1 View Post
    Not fsyncing data to the "disc" is OK-ish for me. Reason : It is developed primarily for flash storage.
    why should that be a reason???

  6. #6
    Join Date
    Aug 2012
    Location
    Pennsylvania, United States
    Posts
    1,900

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by a user View Post
    why should that be a reason???
    Just guessing here, but probably because write times are so fast that its unlikely for the power to die (considering its on battery) at the exact moment something important is in the cache. Also constant fsyncs ruin flash medium lol

  7. #7
    Join Date
    Sep 2011
    Posts
    158

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by EmbraceUnity View Post
    What about Tux3?
    I'm guessing cause its not in the Kernel tree.

  8. #8
    Join Date
    Jul 2012
    Location
    SuperUserLand
    Posts
    538

    Default

    I have sdcards, flash pens, external hd's, etc etc


    they are all in either exfat or fat32

    so FUCK YES this needs to happen and happen fast


    I also question phoronix:


    WHY THE FUCK are you comparing f2fs to ext4 etc? and in a linux install? who the fuck cares


    here's an idea: HOW ABOUT A RELEVANT FUCKING TEST like comparing f2fs perfomance to exfat and fat32 in SD cards and USB pens ???

    y r people so stupid ffs

  9. #9
    Join Date
    Sep 2011
    Location
    Prague
    Posts
    4

    Default

    Calm down, I'm using F2FS for half a year on my mailserver and am a happy user of it.
    I don't care a bit re smearing test and benchmarks. I just use it, because I like the code. And the concept.
    Who cares - let do the test and prove or disprove his dreams coming true or shattering to pieces.

  10. #10
    Join Date
    Jul 2012
    Location
    SuperUserLand
    Posts
    538

    Default

    "Who cares "

    I DO


    my mp3's/flacs are the most precious things I have, I'm not happy with exfat.


    If f2fs is proven to be SAFE and stable, with the same speed as exfat, I'm gonna start formatting all of them

Posting Permissions

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