Real World Benchmarks Of The EXT4 File-System

[thacrazze]

Sorry but I don't need the useless "barriers" and I'm happy with the fastet FS ever

JFS JFS JFS

[energyman]

barriers aren't useless - and jfs has a long history of slowness.

[deanjo]

Sorry but I don't need the useless "barriers" and I'm happy with the fastet FS ever

JFS JFS JFS

Fastest? That's like saying a slower video card is faster if you crank the details down compared to faster card running full eyecandy. If you disable barriers on XFS it stomps on JFS.

[energyman]

http://www.jejik.com/articles/2008/04/benchmarking_linux_filesystems_on_software_raid_1/

see for yourself. Not even is jfs missing features. It is dead slow.

[alec]

If I use ext4 with extents, there is no way to read it from Windows, correct?

I have a media partition in ext3, works out well (considering I have no need to write anything, just occasional read).

[mahuyar]

If I use ext4 with extents, there is no way to read it from Windows, correct?

I have a media partition in ext3, works out well (considering I have no need to write anything, just occasional read).

I think it's too early for that. Give it some time, they'll come up with something... as usual ... The changes between ext3 and ext4 are drastic.

[alec]

By the time "they " come up with anything, windows will not be relevant for me.
In fact, word on street is that ext2 plugin will read ext4 just fine, unless it has extents enabled. But extents is the best thing about ext4, so migration is pointless in this case.

[mahuyar]

By the time "they " come up with anything, windows will not be relevant for me.
In fact, word on street is that ext2 plugin will read ext4 just fine, unless it has extents enabled. But extents is the best thing about ext4, so migration is pointless in this case.

Oh cool... Which program is it? I think there're 2 right?

[rv65]

How does one install Fedora 10 with ext4.

[tytso]

Some added information about ext4

Hi there, I just came across this discussion thread about Phoronix's "Real World Benchmarks of the EXT4 filesystem". In answer to the questions about e2fsck speeds, typical results on a filesystem which is created as a native ext4 filesystem is that it is 6-8 times faster at e2fsck speeds compared to ext3. See my blog posting at: http://thunk.org/tytso/blog/2008/08/...t4-fsck-times/

Secondly, it should be noted that ext4 has barriers on by default (for safety's sake) while ext3 has barriers off by default (it's actually Andrew Morton who has resisted enabling barriers by default). So when ext4 beats ext3 that's despite the fact that ext3 has an "unfair" advantage over filesystems such as xfs and ext4 which enable barriers by default. You can mount ext3 with the mount option barriers=1 if you want to do a more apples-to-apples comparison.

Finally there are some very good benchmarks available at http://btrfs.boxacle.net, done by a guy who works at IBM doing performance measurements. This site's primary mission is benchmarking in support of btrfs development, but there are also some very good benchmarks that compare ext3, ext4, jfs, xfs, and development versions of btrfs. For example please see:

http://btrfs.boxacle.net/repository/single-disk/Initial-compare/Initial-Compare-Single_disk.html

and

http://btrfs.boxacle.net/repository/raid/Initial-compare/Initial-Compare-RAID0.html