Results 1 to 10 of 10

Thread: Linux 3.14 Kernel File-System SSD Benchmarks

  1. #1
    Join Date
    Jan 2007
    Posts
    13,474

    Default Linux 3.14 Kernel File-System SSD Benchmarks

    Phoronix: Linux 3.14 Kernel File-System SSD Benchmarks

    After last week delivering HDD file-system benchmarks on the in-development Linux 3.14 kernel, here are benchmarks of the Btrfs, EXT4, and F2FS file-systems from a solid-state drive.

    http://www.phoronix.com/vr.php?view=19914

  2. #2
    Join Date
    Dec 2013
    Location
    Pforzheim, Germany
    Posts
    6

    Default F2FS

    Quote Originally Posted by phoronix View Post
    Phoronix: Linux 3.14 Kernel File-System SSD Benchmarks
    After last week delivering HDD file-system benchmarks on the in-development Linux 3.14 kernel, here are benchmarks of the Btrfs, EXT4, and F2FS file-systems from a solid-state drive.
    http://www.phoronix.com/vr.php?view=19914
    I use F2FS intensively, it's a great thing, but the biggest lack is still fsck.f2fs. When not unmounted clearly, the flash cards' file system gets corrupted soon; and fsck.f2fs is often not able to repair the damaged file system.

    First, when running fsck.f2fs, assertions are triggered (assertions in release builds ?!?). If the assertions are deleted manually from the source code, fsck.f2fs succeeds, but the file system errors remain.

  3. #3
    Join Date
    Nov 2013
    Posts
    35

    Default

    Is F2FS generally regarded as stable? I'm building a new SSD based system soon and I might consider it, with that write performance.

  4. #4
    Join Date
    Dec 2013
    Location
    Pforzheim, Germany
    Posts
    6

    Default F2FS

    Quote Originally Posted by shaurz View Post
    Is F2FS generally regarded as stable? I'm building a new SSD based system soon and I might consider it, with that write performance.
    F2FS is a great thing, but its biggest problem currently is fsck.f2fs. If you don't unmount a F2FS formatted flash card clearly, it soon gets corrupted. And fsck.f2fs is often incapable of repairing the damaged file system.

  5. #5
    Join Date
    Nov 2013
    Posts
    35

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by jpuhr View Post
    F2FS is a great thing, but its biggest problem currently is fsck.f2fs. If you don't unmount a F2FS formatted flash card clearly, it soon gets corrupted. And fsck.f2fs is often incapable of repairing the damaged file system.
    Ahh right. After my troubles with btrfs I will err on the side of caution.

  6. #6
    Join Date
    Oct 2011
    Posts
    13

    Default

    I get it for ARM devices, but for intel CPUs, I don't get it why BTRFS does not ship with LZO compression enabled by default, it seems the performance gains are large and the downsides are a bit more CPU usage. Other than SSD vs HDD, IO speeds and power consumption of these devices makes miniizing io something of a priority I would expect.

  7. #7
    Join Date
    Jan 2013
    Posts
    986

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by ghexsel View Post
    I don't get it why BTRFS does not ship with LZO compression enabled by default, it seems the performance gains are large and the downsides are a bit more CPU usage.
    Maybe because there are still many SSDs with Sandforce controller that already does compression, without CPU overhead, so that LZO compression in BTRFS would not only be useless, but actually decreasing performance.

  8. #8
    Join Date
    Aug 2013
    Posts
    80

    Default

    Any recent file system comparisons with USB drives and SD cards? Anyone have experience with using flashbench to optimize performance?

    Thanks!

  9. #9
    Join Date
    Mar 2014
    Posts
    6

    Default

    So the F2FS drop in performance in 3.14 "seems to confirm a regression did take place and is still outstanding" - and particularly evident with HDDs as seen at http://www.phoronix.com/scan.php?pag...ltrabook&num=2

    Now I was reading "Linux 3.14-rc5 Brings Stabilization To The New Kernel" and wondered if the situation has changed or not.

    Can anyone shed some light on this issue? Michael, could you please post more recent disk performance benchmarks with kernel 3.14?

  10. #10
    Join Date
    Jul 2012
    Posts
    97

    Default

    notably regression from 3.12 to 3.14 kernel. Could you test N2FS on both USB memory and SSD including new 3.15 kernel?

Posting Permissions

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