Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

Approved: Fedora 33 Desktop Variants Defaulting To Btrfs File-System

Collapse
X
 
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts
    sireangelus
    Senior Member

  • sireangelus
    replied
    Originally posted by useless View Post

    Actually, I was expecting Steam to pop up. Steam distribution system is a nightmare. They do a fsync after every written file! So, if apt is bad, Steam is one of the worst. Personally, I have a separate ext4 formatted disk for my Steam installation, since it won't fit my main drives anyway.

    Regarding thumbnail generation: which software? I don't see how writing new files could cause IO stalls like what you're implying. I'm using btrfs in a lot of systems (most of them in a desktop/workstation role) with photos and videos in the thousands for any particular user: never seen something like that. But I don't use ubuntu (their kernel backporting and patching is garbage), and I don't use gnome.



    That's a bold statement. Bad applications exists (two examples above) and btrfs does indeed suffer more in situations where an excessive number of fsync calls are being issued, but to call it bad for any kind of workloads isn't accurate. If you believe phoronix's numbers, you will see this. If you don't, btrfs developers are working on sane benchmarks; synthetics are mostly useless, in most cases.
    dolphin. I mean i make a pretty generic usage of my workstation- from gaming to virtualization to office work to media work- and i can tell that it's just so much slower than when i install ext4. You can feel it. It's actually measurable.

    Leave a comment:

  • dovla091
    Junior Member

  • dovla091
    replied
    Originally posted by pal666 View Post
    what are you talking about? are you off your meds?
    Really son? How will you convert for example ext4 to btrfs system partition table while your system is running?

    Leave a comment:

  • starshipeleven
    Premium Supporter

  • starshipeleven
    replied
    Originally posted by kloczek View Post
    Do you know which one year we have currently?
    Do you know any more recent benchmark?

    Leave a comment:

  • starshipeleven
    Premium Supporter

  • starshipeleven
    replied
    Originally posted by kloczek View Post
    Can you show or describe one example of the workload under which Solaris 11.4 is slower than Linux?
    No, the EULA forbids me from doing so without Oracle's consent
    It cuts both ways lol

    Leave a comment:

  • kloczek
    Phoronix Member

  • kloczek
    replied
    Originally posted by starshipeleven View Post
    I mean 2012, which is the same major release it also is at now, btw, while Linux has increased on any metric.
    https://www.phoronix.com/scan.php?pa...ubuntu12&num=1
    https://www.phoronix.com/scan.php?pa...olaris11&num=1
    Do you know which one year we have currently?

    Leave a comment:

  • kloczek
    Phoronix Member

  • kloczek
    replied
    Originally posted by starshipeleven View Post
    I was talking about Slowaris
    Can you show or describe one example of the workload under which Solaris 11.4 is slower than Linux?

    Leave a comment:

  • starshipeleven
    Premium Supporter

  • starshipeleven
    replied
    Originally posted by kloczek View Post
    Last -> you mean 19 years ago ..
    I mean 2012, which is the same major release it also is at now, btw, while Linux has increased on any metric.
    https://www.phoronix.com/scan.php?pa...ubuntu12&num=1
    https://www.phoronix.com/scan.php?pa...olaris11&num=1
    How old are you? (ruffly +/-5 years)
    Enough to be in bed with your mom, and make you call me daddy.

    Leave a comment:

  • starshipeleven
    Premium Supporter

  • starshipeleven
    replied
    Originally posted by kloczek View Post
    Sorry how did you get that?
    Sorry don't mind me, I'm just quoting your very own posts:
    Are you aware of very simple facts that most of the read workloads are random and only very small number of those workloads are sequential?
    What happens when distribution of the blocks is random and you are reading randomly? Mostly nothing .. you have ~the same level of randomness on reads.
    Nope.
    It also reduces amount of fragmentation as there is less stuff inside the block so it does not need to read as much useless data just because it is in the same blocks as the data it is looking for

    It is not at all because none of the ZFS fanbois cares about fragmentation
    fixed


    Windows has nothing to do with ZFS.
    I was talking about Slowaris

    Leave a comment:

  • S.Pam
    Senior Member

  • S.Pam
    replied
    Originally posted by Mario Junior View Post

    I use this on OpenSUSE:
    You will gain small amounts of performance if you change to "compress-force=zstd". You may also want to benchmark and see what compression level is good for you: https://wiki.tnonline.net/w/Btrfs/Zstd (benchmark tool)

    EDIT: Oh and I so do not like the '@' naming scheme so many are using!
    S.Pam
    Senior Member
    Last edited by S.Pam; 17 July 2020, 07:18 AM.

    Leave a comment:

  • kloczek
    Phoronix Member

  • kloczek
    replied
    Originally posted by starshipeleven View Post
    It sure was in the last benchmarks before that went up.

    Lies, people has been laid off and information about the situation also hit the streets
    Last -> you mean 19 years ago ..
    How old are you? (ruffly +/-5 years)

    Leave a comment:

Working...
X