Page 1 of 3 123 LastLast
Results 1 to 10 of 21

Thread: 10-Way Linux File-System Comparison On Linux 3.10

  1. #1
    Join Date
    Jan 2007
    Posts
    13,405

    Default 10-Way Linux File-System Comparison On Linux 3.10

    Phoronix: 10-Way Linux File-System Comparison On Linux 3.10

    On the latest Linux 3.10 stable kernel we have taken ten common Linux file-systems and generated an interesting performance comparisons. The Linux file-systems being tested in this article include XFS, Btrfs, EXT2, EXT3, EXT4, ReiserFS, Reiser4, JFS, F2FS, and ZFS.

    http://www.phoronix.com/vr.php?view=19019

  2. #2
    Join Date
    Oct 2007
    Posts
    1,185

    Default

    Typo on page2:
    The results for FS-Mark were less spread in the multi-threaded test case with EXT4 and Btrfs and ZFS all being front-runners while Reiser4, ReiserFS, and ZFS were the slower ones.
    I think you meant XFS was a front-runner...

  3. #3
    Join Date
    Sep 2009
    Posts
    8

    Default

    Could it be feasible to include Windows and OS X with their default filesystems into such tests as an additional reference point?

  4. #4
    Join Date
    Dec 2011
    Posts
    1,932

    Default Tux3

    Nice test!

    Too bad Tux3 isn't included.

  5. #5

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by aigarius View Post
    Could it be feasible to include Windows and OS X with their default filesystems into such tests as an additional reference point?
    No, for Windows too much time with too little ROI for all Windows tests when I'm doing everything myself and already running short... For OS X, not enough Apple hardware...

  6. #6
    Join Date
    Jun 2012
    Posts
    27

    Post

    Thanks for the Summer Gift Michael!

    I was looking forward to using F2FS on a production machine once it is a bit more mature with kernel 3.11... now I think I'll stay with ext2 on my SSD (/home being on an ext4 partition).

    Could someone using F2fs for his system provide feedback please?
    Thx

  7. #7
    Join Date
    May 2007
    Location
    Third Rock from the Sun
    Posts
    6,532

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by BO$$ View Post
    So basically Ext2 is better than Ext4. Nice! You probably call this evolution. Keep going file system developers. Crush the performance of the file system. So it's either ReiserFS or Ext2 since the rest are shit. Too bad one is made by a jailed murderer! Hahaha! You never get tired with Linux! Your best coders have to be removed from society for the good of us all! Hahahahahahahahahaaaaaa
    Maybe you should actually think before you post. Ext 2 does not have journaling explaining why it is faster. There is always a trade off when it comes to speed vs data integrity.

    It's like comparing FAT32 vs NTFS. FAT32 is usually faster but is a lot riskier then NTFS in terms of integrity.

    http://technet.microsoft.com/en-us/l.../cc938440.aspx
    Last edited by deanjo; 08-08-2013 at 03:57 PM.

  8. #8
    Join Date
    Dec 2008
    Posts
    145

    Default suggestion for addition to phoronix filesystem benchmarks

    Joseph Bacik (a btrfs dev) looked into the fio benchmark poor performance of btrfs, and he concluded that it is because btrfs does poorly with non-4K aligned workloads. He found that adding

    ba=4k

    to the fio script brought btrfs performance up to be closer to ext4 and XFS.

    Therefore, I suggest an additional phoronix filesystem benchmark, which would be almost identical to the current fio benchmark, except with the addition of 'ba=4k' to the fio script.

    This would allow people whose workloads are primarily 4K-aligned to see a comparison of the filesystems with a workload more similar to their own. It also provides a nice contrast with the non-4K-aligned benchmark so that people can see what filesystems do much better with unaligned writes.

  9. #9
    Join Date
    Sep 2007
    Location
    Athens-Hellas
    Posts
    250

    Default

    Reiser 4 is really a mystery here! Its performance is way better than someone would expect for being an out of main Kernel tree filesystem with just one developer working on it at his spare time for fun?? ZFS on the other hand is what we would expect...

    Michael are there any "holes" at the tests? Meaning like the one showing EXT2 performance at about 530MB/sec where you point out that it is not writing all of the data because it is not in sync with the disc??

    Furthermore I see btrfs improving and catching up EXT4! F2FS looks promising but needs more work to become a stantard central filesystem for ssds, XFS is also as mature as EXT4 but slightly slower!

    EXT4 is still the bext for default in my opinion! But also I believe Reiser 4 deserves some more love from Kernel and FS devs!

  10. #10
    Join Date
    Jul 2013
    Location
    Weed, CA, US [It's as bad as it sounds.]
    Posts
    34

    Default Prefer "Optimal" or "Common" mount options rather than "Default"

    I know that it is hard to do a fair comparison of FSs since many of them are highly configurable to suit magnetic vs electronic media, streaming reads vs random writes, etc. However, as Michael's [recent](www.phoronix.com/vr.php?view=18940) article has shown, there are some options that are highly likely to be used by the vast majority of sysadmins/users. As an anecdotal example, I always use the `relatime,compress=lzo,space_cache` options when creating a btrfs filesystem. If the disk is an SSD, I always add `ssd,discard`. I'm sure that there are generally optimal options for all FSs for general use. I would love to see comparison benchmarks done with these optimal or generally recommended mount options instead of the default. Since I presume that anyone who cares enough to read benchmarks is going to use non-default mount options; this seems to make the benchmarks reflective of the real world ('nix-geek subset ).

    Other than avoiding flame wars over the "generally used" options, why not?

Posting Permissions

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