Results 1 to 10 of 11

Thread: F2FS File-System Runs Great On SDHC Storage

Hybrid View

  1. #1
    Join Date
    Jan 2007
    Posts
    14,759

    Default F2FS File-System Runs Great On SDHC Storage

    Phoronix: F2FS File-System Runs Great On SDHC Storage

    Earlier this week I performed some F2FS file-system benchmarks on the Linux 3.8 kernel with an Intel X25 Solid-State Drive (SSD) compared to the EXT4, Btrfs, and other file-systems. Out today are benchmarks of the Flash-Friendly File-System from an SDHC card on Linux.

    http://www.phoronix.com/vr.php?view=18494

  2. #2
    Join Date
    Jul 2011
    Posts
    7

    Default no random 4k published - so what for is this test on a SDHC card useful

    Quote Originally Posted by phoronix View Post
    Phoronix: F2FS File-System Runs Great On SDHC Storage

    Earlier this week I performed some F2FS file-system benchmarks on the Linux 3.8 kernel with an Intel X25 Solid-State Drive (SSD) compared to the EXT4, Btrfs, and other file-systems. Out today are benchmarks of the Flash-Friendly File-System from an SDHC card on Linux.

    http://www.phoronix.com/vr.php?view=18494
    Yes I think a random 4k test (read/write) would be quite a nice to have to. This is where I have experienced serious problems or severe performance degradation on such as USB sticks or SDHC orCF cards in the past when running filesystems like ext4.
    Unfortunately phoronix doe not include this in the benchmark of iozone for 8GB!

  3. #3
    Join Date
    Feb 2012
    Posts
    70

    Default

    This is excellent engineering. But hardly a surprise, conidering that F2FS has been excplicitly designed for Flash based devices, keeping in mind all the quirks.
    And AFAIK, Ext4 and BTRFS are more HDD based in their design. They have to perform well in each type of storage.

  4. #4

    Default

    Seems to be about ~50% faster on average in many cases. Not bad! Is this the final version, or do they still have more time to improve it?

  5. #5
    Join Date
    Jul 2012
    Location
    SuperUserLand
    Posts
    538

    Default

    he didn't test it against exfat or fat32


    *facepalm**facepalm*

  6. #6
    Join Date
    Jan 2009
    Location
    Outthere, NSW, Australia
    Posts
    372

    Default

    Yeah this is pretty incomprehensive. I can understand EXT4 against others, but the Butter? It's meant for a multitude of mass-storage devices. A low-end replacement entreprisish item and not for singular removable flash discs. FAT and Co, NTFS, EXTies all would have been far more appropriate for removable media benchmark comparison. If time permitted then, yeah sure throw in BTRFS. Does the F2FS even come close to the featurefullness and record keeping/redudancy capabilities of BTRFS in a oranges for oranges 'default' comparison?

  7. #7

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Pallidus View Post
    he didn't test it against exfat or fat32


    *facepalm**facepalm*
    There is no mainline exFAT support in the Linux kernel.

    Most of the disk benchmarks won't run on FAT32.

Posting Permissions

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