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

Thread: HDD & SSD File-System Benchmarks On Linux 3.9 Kernel

  1. #1
    Join Date
    Jan 2007
    Posts
    15,654

    Default HDD & SSD File-System Benchmarks On Linux 3.9 Kernel

    Phoronix: HDD & SSD File-System Benchmarks On Linux 3.9 Kernel

    For those curious where the common Linux file-systems stand performance-wise for the Linux 3.9 kernel, here are benchmarks from a solid-state drive and hard drive when comparing the EXT4, Btrfs, XFS, and F2FS file-systems from this yet-to-be-released Linux kernel.

    http://www.phoronix.com/vr.php?view=18573

  2. #2
    Join Date
    Nov 2008
    Posts
    57

    Default Apples and oranges?

    Since btrfs and xfs include additional functionality, shouldn't ext4 be tested configured with LVM2 and mdraid to compare equivalents?

  3. #3
    Join Date
    Jul 2009
    Posts
    221

    Default

    BTRFS is sometimes slower on an SSD than an HDD? Does that make sense?

  4. #4
    Join Date
    Feb 2013
    Location
    Canada
    Posts
    3

    Default

    I stress tested BTRFS for a recent server, and got it to crash dump twice. I seem to be able to trigger it mostly with compression on and writing many small files with rsync. Whatever the case, that ixnayed BTRFS for me... not that I expected different, but it pays to know these things.

  5. #5
    Join Date
    Aug 2012
    Location
    Pennsylvania, United States
    Posts
    1,939

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by phoronix View Post
    Phoronix: HDD & SSD File-System Benchmarks On Linux 3.9 Kernel

    For those curious where the common Linux file-systems stand performance-wise for the Linux 3.9 kernel, here are benchmarks from a solid-state drive and hard drive when comparing the EXT4, Btrfs, XFS, and F2FS file-systems from this yet-to-be-released Linux kernel.

    http://www.phoronix.com/vr.php?view=18573
    Ill be honest I onlu read this article for the ext4 vs btrfs comparison. I just did a home server install of F18 and Btrfs and am quite happy with it. Michael the next time you do these benchmarks can you include 2 more setups though? Ext4 overtop LVM to see what the penalty there is. (Also is a more comparable benchmark to btrfs that way). The other is including a btrfs with compress=lzo

  6. #6
    Join Date
    Aug 2012
    Location
    Pennsylvania, United States
    Posts
    1,939

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Shaman666 View Post
    I stress tested BTRFS for a recent server, and got it to crash dump twice. I seem to be able to trigger it mostly with compression on and writing many small files with rsync. Whatever the case, that ixnayed BTRFS for me... not that I expected different, but it pays to know these things.
    Did you write up or check for bug reports? Crashes are bad, yes, but it shouldn't have hosed the entire filesystem since btrfs keeps multiple copies of both metadata and superblock

  7. #7
    Join Date
    Nov 2008
    Posts
    57

    Default btrfs

    Quote Originally Posted by Shaman666 View Post
    I stress tested BTRFS for a recent server, and got it to crash dump twice. I seem to be able to trigger it mostly with compression on and writing many small files with rsync. Whatever the case, that ixnayed BTRFS for me... not that I expected different, but it pays to know these things.
    Make sure you're using the latest kernel (3.9.0-rc3) and btrfs-tools. I've been using btrfs on 2 desktops, a laptop, and a server for 9 months now. The only issue was a bug in the 3.8 series that caused an oops, which was corrected in a month.

  8. #8
    Join Date
    Sep 2009
    Posts
    60

    Default Another vote to add btrfs with compress=lzo

    Please test btrfs with LZO as that's the common use-case for me and the big sale of BTRFS for most people running SSDs. It's not default, but should be. Also the data would need to make sense for your test goals as /dev/random doesn't resemble all the compressible text, scripts, and ELF that's common in a system (if the test goals resemble system activities).

  9. #9
    Join Date
    Jan 2009
    Posts
    141

    Default

    Am I the only one here excited about F2FS? It might become the default filesystem for the Raspberry Pi when they switch from 3.6 to 3.8.

  10. #10
    Join Date
    May 2010
    Posts
    17

    Default y u no test zfs ?

    Again no ZFS. Why? Phoronix is the one that got my attention to zfsonlinux, yet it's been ignoring it for a while now? Don't like the developers or what?
    It's imho the only advanced features fs today that is actually useable, btrfs still feels lightyears away and in the mean time i'm migrating more and more boxes to zfsonlinux.
    And it looks like it also already compatible with 3.9 so no excuses there.

Posting Permissions

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