Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

Ubuntu 12.04 LTS - Benchmarking All The Linux File-Systems

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

  • Ubuntu 12.04 LTS - Benchmarking All The Linux File-Systems

    Phoronix: Ubuntu 12.04 LTS - Benchmarking All The Linux File-Systems

    When running Linux file-system benchmarks at Phoronix it is most often a comparison of EXT4 vs. Btrfs, since they are the "hot" Linux file-systems at the moment. Sometimes others like ZFS, Reiser4, and XFS also join the party. In this article is a look at all of the Linux file-systems with install-time support under the forthcoming Ubuntu 12.04 LTS. When carrying out clean installations each time with changing out the root file-system and using the default mount options, ReiserFS, JFS, EXT2, EXT3, EXT4, Btrfs, and XFS are all being compared in this article.

    http://www.phoronix.com/vr.php?view=17164

  • blackiwid
    replied
    Originally posted by dnebdal View Post
    You mean GPT, btw. It's nice enough as long as your BIOS can boot it; the only thing that annoys me with it is that Win7 and Win8 don't want to install onto GPT partitions. On the other hand it supports larger partitions, more partitions, more file system type codes, and it's a bit more resilient with the backup copy at the end of the disk.
    that sounded good, but in reality it scrued my boot process what MBR did never.
    that was the first time that I did not lost data, no damaged disk, but I did not get grub to boot with rescue disk routine. just by upgrading to the next ubuntu version. So after that you get more conservative for a while after you install again the most bleeding edge stuff

    good it was not that bad because I could backup my home but because I was not shure if the new ubuntu screewed my boot process or what I did reinstall my ubuntu, and because it seemed I did save the packagelist in a wrong format, I had to install all packet after packet when I needed it. Yes not that big loss but it sucked at least a bit

    Originally posted by dnebdal View Post
    Not that it really matters as long as you can get your file system onto the disk at the desired position and length, and boot from it.
    yes it had something good like I said on ext4 linux now is really fast like it should be on a ssd ^^ so it was worth the pain maybe

    Leave a comment:


  • dnebdal
    replied
    Originally posted by malkavian View Post
    Well, just read in wikipedia and with static wear leveling free or used space is not a problem: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wear_leveling#Types
    Ah, that's fairly elegant.

    Leave a comment:


  • malkavian
    replied
    Well, just read in wikipedia and with static wear leveling free or used space is not a problem: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wear_leveling#Types

    Leave a comment:


  • dnebdal
    replied
    Originally posted by curaga View Post
    I'll have to counter that with Murphy's law, the steady state of any disk is full
    Better stated as a gas law, I think - stored data expands to fill all available space.
    (Still, if you do a programs / data split over an SSD and a normal disk, it often works out with some free space on the SSD.)
    Last edited by dnebdal; 03-17-2012, 05:05 PM.

    Leave a comment:


  • curaga
    replied
    I'll have to counter that with Murphy's law, the steady state of any disk is full

    Leave a comment:


  • dnebdal
    replied
    Originally posted by curaga View Post
    Larger disks only help if you're not actually using the space. And if that's the case, why pay for a big ssd in the first place?
    As long as the absolute amount of free space is larger, it helps. Larger drives tend to both have more reserved space and for the user to leave (in absolute amounts) more free.

    Leave a comment:


  • curaga
    replied
    Originally posted by dnebdal View Post
    Right, that's a bit annoying. The chips in the intel 320 series are apparently rated at 5k - so halve the above numbers. On the flipside, lager capacities help - so newer models will make up for it just by having more space to spread the writes over.
    Larger disks only help if you're not actually using the space. And if that's the case, why pay for a big ssd in the first place?

    Leave a comment:


  • dnebdal
    replied
    Originally posted by curaga View Post
    Quoth wikipedia:
    Right, that's a bit annoying. The chips in the intel 320 series are apparently rated at 5k - so halve the above numbers. On the flipside, lager capacities help - so newer models will make up for it just by having more space to spread the writes over.

    Leave a comment:


  • curaga
    replied
    Quoth wikipedia:
    MLC NAND flash used to be rated at about 5–10k cycles (Samsung K9G8G08U0M) but is now typically 1k - 3k cycles

    Leave a comment:

Working...
X