Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

Corsair USB 3.0 Flash Voyager Drives: EXT4 vs. NTFS vs. Btrfs vs. F2FS

Collapse
X
 
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • #31
    Originally posted by starshipeleven View Post

    This isn't NTFS from windows, but NTFS from linux. Linux NTFS drivers are crappy because various obvious reasons. NTFS from windows is pretty good.

    exFAT from linux uses the same FUSE infrastructure of NTF on linux, so it will have crap performance, and might be also as unreliable.
    Must agree with you on this point, without adding the "real" NTFS on Windows for comparison in this test, talking about NTFS is not fair.

    Comment


    • #32
      This Corsair USB 3.0 Flash Voyager 1GB drive
      Seems there was typo? 1GiB USB 3.0 drive is a nice joke. And, hmm, yeah, FUSE suxx when it comes to speed. NTFS should be last resort option for Linux users.

      Comment


      • #33
        Originally posted by phoronix View Post
        Phoronix: Corsair USB 3.0 Flash Voyager Drives: EXT4 vs. NTFS vs. Btrfs vs. F2FS

        With having some new Corsair USB 3.0 Flash Voyager flash drives around, I decided to run some fresh Linux file-system benchmarks on them to see how various file-systems are performing on low-cost USB flash drives.

        http://www.phoronix.com/vr.php?view=23096
        Michael was right to remark about the FIO results being wrong, but he was wrong to claim it is fsync related on a read only benchmark. He should have claimed that it is cache related. Doing O_DIRECT in FIO evidently has no effect on how the FUSE driver opens the block device.

        That means that the FUSE driver is reading out of the kernel buffer cache. This could be confirmed with strace. iostat should also show 0 IO requests being sent to the block device.

        That also means that Michael failed to scale the benchmark's dataset to exceed system memory. Doing twice system memory as Brendan Gregg does would have eliminated the buffer cache as a confounding variable and produced a reliable FIO result (assuming no other confounding variables like sector misalignment).
        Last edited by ryao; 01 May 2016, 04:33 PM.

        Comment


        • #34
          Originally posted by starshipeleven View Post

          This isn't NTFS from windows, but NTFS from linux. Linux NTFS drivers are crappy because various obvious reasons. NTFS from windows is pretty good.

          exFAT from linux uses the same FUSE infrastructure of NTF on linux, so it will have crap performance, and might be also as unreliable.
          @starshipeleven,

          Performance wise (especially in large-storage-cases), NTFS is a rotten file system, even on Windwos 2K8/12.
          We've developed a big data software that uses POSIX (Linux) and Win32 (Windows) to create billions of small (<64KB) compressed files.
          No matter what we do, and that includes using low-level internal API (NtCreateFile, etc) NTFS performance remains 80% (if not more) slower than ext4.
          Far worse, once you reach more than 1000 files per sub-directory, file creation (via NtCreateFile) becomes 100 (!) times slower than POSIX creat.

          Granted, once you have the file handles active, read / write performance are more or less the same.

          - Gilboa
          oVirt-HV1: Intel S2600C0, 2xE5-2658V2, 128GB, 8x2TB, 4x480GB SSD, GTX1080 (to-VM), Dell U3219Q, U2415, U2412M.
          oVirt-HV2: Intel S2400GP2, 2xE5-2448L, 120GB, 8x2TB, 4x480GB SSD, GTX730 (to-VM).
          oVirt-HV3: Gigabyte B85M-HD3, E3-1245V3, 32GB, 4x1TB, 2x480GB SSD, GTX980 (to-VM).
          Devel-2: Asus H110M-K, i5-6500, 16GB, 3x1TB + 128GB-SSD, F33.

          Comment


          • #35
            Originally posted by gilboa View Post

            @starshipeleven,

            Performance wise (especially in large-storage-cases), NTFS is a rotten file system, even on Windwos 2K8/12.
            We've developed a big data software that uses POSIX (Linux) and Win32 (Windows) to create billions of small (<64KB) compressed files.
            No matter what we do, and that includes using low-level internal API (NtCreateFile, etc) NTFS performance remains 80% (if not more) slower than ext4.
            Far worse, once you reach more than 1000 files per sub-directory, file creation (via NtCreateFile) becomes 100 (!) times slower than POSIX creat.

            Granted, once you have the file handles active, read / write performance are more or less the same.

            - Gilboa
            I was talking of desktop use-case mostly (most common place where you will find NTFS all over the place). There it's fast as anything else. Not like 400% slower than ext4 on any test like shown here.

            Comment


            • #36
              Originally posted by starshipeleven View Post

              I was talking of desktop use-case mostly (most common place where you will find NTFS all over the place). There it's fast as anything else. Not like 400% slower than ext4 on any test like shown here.
              I guess you're right, though it does depends on the benchmark.
              E.g. Large project compilation may trigger the same issues w/ NTFS (Slow file creation, slow access to huge-directories) as we witnessed.

              - Gilboa
              oVirt-HV1: Intel S2600C0, 2xE5-2658V2, 128GB, 8x2TB, 4x480GB SSD, GTX1080 (to-VM), Dell U3219Q, U2415, U2412M.
              oVirt-HV2: Intel S2400GP2, 2xE5-2448L, 120GB, 8x2TB, 4x480GB SSD, GTX730 (to-VM).
              oVirt-HV3: Gigabyte B85M-HD3, E3-1245V3, 32GB, 4x1TB, 2x480GB SSD, GTX980 (to-VM).
              Devel-2: Asus H110M-K, i5-6500, 16GB, 3x1TB + 128GB-SSD, F33.

              Comment


              • #37
                Originally posted by SystemCrasher View Post
                Seems there was typo? 1GiB USB 3.0 drive is a nice joke.
                I mentioned that in comment #10 already.

                Comment

                Working...
                X