Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

Btrfs RAID Tests On Linux 4.8

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

  • Btrfs RAID Tests On Linux 4.8

    Phoronix: Btrfs RAID Tests On Linux 4.8

    Recently I've been carrying out a number of Btrfs RAID tests on Linux 4.7 while this past weekend I ran some comparison tests using the Linux 4.8 Git kernel...

    Phoronix, Linux Hardware Reviews, Linux hardware benchmarks, Linux server benchmarks, Linux benchmarking, Desktop Linux, Linux performance, Open Source graphics, Linux How To, Ubuntu benchmarks, Ubuntu hardware, Phoronix Test Suite

  • #2
    Jeez, I hope they don't mess up single disk performance in the process. It's only rc2 so I remain hopeful.

    Comment


    • #3
      I still remember 7 years ago doing a Gentoo install and thinking "Gee btrfs sounds neat, but it sure is slow. Maybe I'll wait a few releases..."

      Comment


      • #4
        It really is neat.

        And we only notice it to be slow (raid10) when we update packages (.deb) using synaptics/apt or run a VM.

        I don't think the benchmarks properly reflect that in many use cases (except databases like postgres, sqlite) the disk being 50% faster or slower is hardly noticeable.

        While on our server (raid10 + 100 snapshots) apt is running maybe 10x slower than on my desktop (single + 0 snapshots). While on the desktop apt may be unnoticeable slower than ext4.

        Michael, can't you do a benchmark based on apt (lots of fsync), on btrfs with lots of snapshots. What I read is that btrfs can take a snapshot very fast, the downside being that other file operations with lots of snapshots can be very slow.

        Comment


        • #5
          do you think you would be able to compare xfs/ext4/f2fs+mdadm raid vs btrfs in same raid parity ?

          Comment


          • #6
            Originally posted by ferry View Post
            It really is neat.

            And we only notice it to be slow (raid10) when we update packages (.deb) using synaptics/apt or run a VM.

            I don't think the benchmarks properly reflect that in many use cases (except databases like postgres, sqlite) the disk being 50% faster or slower is hardly noticeable.

            While on our server (raid10 + 100 snapshots) apt is running maybe 10x slower than on my desktop (single + 0 snapshots). While on the desktop apt may be unnoticeable slower than ext4.

            Michael, can't you do a benchmark based on apt (lots of fsync), on btrfs with lots of snapshots. What I read is that btrfs can take a snapshot very fast, the downside being that other file operations with lots of snapshots can be very slow.
            50% seems a bit excessive. Most benchmarks put it at 80-90% of the speed. However, compression, snapshots, subvolumes, mounted scrubbing, defragmenting, etc. make up for this for me at least. It's an amazing filesystem which I hope improves in speed later, but even right now is adequate for both my hard drives and my NVME ssd.

            Originally posted by ormaaj View Post
            I still remember 7 years ago doing a Gentoo install and thinking "Gee btrfs sounds neat, but it sure is slow. Maybe I'll wait a few releases..."
            You should still try it, especially on hard drives.
            Last edited by thelongdivider; 18 August 2016, 12:05 PM.

            Comment

            Working...
            X