Originally posted by starshipeleven
View Post
Announcement
Collapse
No announcement yet.
Corsair USB 3.0 Flash Voyager Drives: EXT4 vs. NTFS vs. Btrfs vs. F2FS
Collapse
X
-
Originally posted by phoronix View PostPhoronix: 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
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.
- Likes 3
Comment
-
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.
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.
- GilboaoVirt-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.
- Likes 2
Comment
-
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
Comment
-
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.
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
Comment