Page 1 of 2 12 LastLast
Results 1 to 10 of 11

Thread: Btrfs Mount Option Performance Tuning On Linux 3.11

  1. #1
    Join Date
    Jan 2007
    Posts
    14,355

    Default Btrfs Mount Option Performance Tuning On Linux 3.11

    Phoronix: Btrfs Mount Option Performance Tuning On Linux 3.11

    To complement the EXT4, XFS, Btrfs, and F2FS benchmark results that were published yesterday from the Linux 3.11 kernel and its predecessors, here are some Btrfs tuning benchmarks on the Linux 3.11 kernel with various performance-sensitive Btrfs mount options being tried.

    http://www.phoronix.com/vr.php?view=18940

  2. #2
    Join Date
    Jan 2009
    Location
    Vienna, Austria; Germany; hello world :)
    Posts
    622

    Default

    how about nossd mount option + harddrive combination ?

    isn't ssd the default ?

  3. #3
    Join Date
    Jan 2009
    Posts
    1,303

    Default

    Thanks for the update on btrfs.
    I'm impressed they've managed to really decrease the delta between COW and no-COW.
    I've been using btrfs for root since around sept and haven't had any problems. Always fast, and never any data issues (use lzo and autodefrag).

  4. #4
    Join Date
    Sep 2008
    Location
    Vilnius, Lithuania
    Posts
    2,522

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by kernelOfTruth View Post
    how about nossd mount option + harddrive combination ?

    isn't ssd the default ?
    No, Btrfs figures out whether you have an HDD or an SSD automatically (by checking device properties). The ssd and nossd options are in case it's not detected correctly.

  5. #5
    Join Date
    Oct 2007
    Posts
    42

    Default

    It would be interesting to how btrfs performs agains zfs on freebsd. How feature complete is btrfs in comparison to zfs on freebsd in kernel 3.11 and freebsd 9.2 or the coming version 10?

  6. #6
    Join Date
    Jul 2009
    Posts
    90

    Default

    Well looks like the software LZO compression is beating the hardware compression of the Vertex 3's SandForce chip....

  7. #7
    Join Date
    Nov 2010
    Posts
    101

    Default skinny metadata

    It'd be interesting to see the benchmark results using btrfs' new skinny metadata/extents

  8. #8
    Join Date
    Feb 2009
    Posts
    367

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by liam View Post
    Thanks for the update on btrfs.
    I'm impressed they've managed to really decrease the delta between COW and no-COW.
    I've been using btrfs for root since around sept and haven't had any problems. Always fast, and never any data issues (use lzo and autodefrag).
    I'm also using lzo + autodefrag. It seems to me like this combination is fairly common. I think there was some efficiency work done on autodefrag with the newest kernels, so it would be interesting to see how that affects things.

  9. #9
    Join Date
    Feb 2013
    Posts
    81

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by benmoran View Post
    I'm also using lzo + autodefrag. It seems to me like this combination is fairly common. I think there was some efficiency work done on autodefrag with the newest kernels, so it would be interesting to see how that affects things.
    Hardware:
    Processor: Intel Core i7-3840QM @ 3.80GHz (8 Cores), Motherboard: CLEVO W240EU/W250EUQ/W270EUQ, Memory: 8192MB, Disk: 120GB OCZ AGILITY3, Graphics: Intel Ivybridge Mobile, Audio: VIA VT1802

    Software:
    OS: Gentoo 2.2, Kernel: 3.11.0-rc2-sjn-00243-g712d895 (x86_64), Desktop: GNOME Shell 3.8.3, Display Server: X Server 1.14.99.1, Display Driver: intel 2.21.12, OpenGL: 3.1 Mesa 9.2.0-devel (git-1903129), Compiler: Clang 3.3 + LLVM 3.3, File-System: btrfs, Screen Resolution: 1920x1080

    Filesystem configuration:

    Partition aligned at @4M

    Btrfs create/mount options

    16k leafsize
    16k nodesize
    4k sectorsize
    TRIM (discard) enabled
    disk space caching is enabled
    skinny extents
    lzo compression
    inode map caching
    auto defrag

    Initial test shows I get twice the performance with fs-mark, if I get a chance and there's interest I'll run a full benchmark.

  10. #10
    Join Date
    Jun 2013
    Posts
    42

    Default Autodefrag

    Does anyone know if the benchmarks were performed by recreating the file system for each set of options, or just by remounting them?
    If the files were created without autodefrag, the system could be bogged down defragging everything during the benchmark.

Posting Permissions

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