No announcement yet.

Real World Benchmarks Of The EXT4 File-System

  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • #71
    Originally posted by greg View Post
    ReiserFS, with its balanced trees, is extremely sensitive to CPU and memory errors. Imagine a RAM module goes bad, and you only notice it a few days later. This can be too late already and half the file system is destroyed. It's what happened to me.
    Yes... Though these issues are already known (except by people with marginal hardware who won't acknowledge the fact ;>). Reiserfs (v3) is imho easily the best linux filesystem. I've used it exclusively for over 5 years on dozens of installs and never have had a problem except for an overheating disk.

    Having said that, A solution to any problem must address all issues, technical and social. Reiserfs v3 and v4 are unfortunately marginalised by
    1) (above quote)
    2) Hans' no-nonsense attitude to various people
    3) Hans' legal problem
    4) reiserfsck tree splicing bug.
    5) Reiser4's non-inclusion in kernel due to (2) (3).

    As for Ext3/4, I can't comment personally as my few experiences of ext3 were so sluggish i've hardly used it.... But i suspect energyman is right ( ;> ).


    • #72
      Originally posted by deanjo View Post
      Here is the exact reasons why suse dropped it.
      Actually, the real reason why SuSE dropped it is to be found in here somewhere:

      Originally posted by drag
      Suse was a early adopter and proponent of ReiserFsv3. They have ReiserFS developers on staff.
      At least this statement of yours is true.

      Suse has supported and distributed Reiser3 ever since January 2000 (in SuSE 6.3).

      They show no sign of moving to support v4 in any meaningful way.
      This is TOTAL CRAP. Suse supported and distributed Reiser4 for years.

      They were almost the only ones supporting it.

      They too depend heavily on the ability of Linux to compete with Unix, Windows, and especially Redhat.
      This is TOTAL CRAP as well.

      Reiser4 was supported by SuSE till they were bought out by the Jews. The Jews already owned Redhat, so there was no competition.

      So you would think that if v4 offered a substantial advantage over the more mundane Linux file systems then they would jump at the chance to push their OS forward.
      The (German company SuSE) did "jump at the chance," as a non-fairy tale version of history substantiates.

      When the Jews bought it out, they worked hard on getting rid of KDE, Reiser3, Reiser4, mp3 support and NTFS support.

      Destruction of Linux NTFS support got away from them when Szabolcs Szakacsits released his NTFS driver.

      They removed mp3 support from SuSE 10. Thus I stopped using SuSE, so I don't know if it is still sabotaged in this way.

      Reiser4 has been successfully shut down by sabotage of the Linux kernel code due to Andrew Morton.

      They are still trying to kill Reiser3, but too many people know that for years it was the best filesystem available and it is proving hard for them to get rid of it.

      There was a huge user rebellion against the move to Gnome and KDE stayed,... at least for now.


      • #73
        Originally posted by StringCheesian View Post
        While that reflects the stability of those filesystems, it's also slanted by their popularity/exposure. In other words, given 2 filesystems of equal quality, one twice as popular should average about twice as many bug reports. Simply counting bug reports would mistake obscurity for stability and broad exposure for bugginess.
        Esp. when you consider that probably a significant fraction of the data loss reports (for any filesystem) are partly due to flaky hardware (bad RAM, bad power supply, ...) more users = more corruption pretty much independently of the reliability of the filesystem code (on good hardware). Esp. distro default filesystems will get used by less-expert users who are probably more likely to have less-good hardware. (My theory here is that people who are computer-savvy enough to build a machine with quality parts might be more likely to choose non-default filesystems.)

        edit: forgot to say: My guess is that people usually switch to a new filesystem when the set up a new machine and do a fresh install, so their experience of one filesystem is on one machine, and of another filesystem on another machine. If one of those machines sometimes had memory errors, or data errors on the way from disk to memory, that will affect their impression. So everyone out there who's had bad luck with a certain FS, think back and see if you remember trying other filesystems on the same hardware. If not, maybe it was marginal hardware causing the problems.

        Sensitivity to memory errors should be a factor in filesystem choice if you run with a cheapo power supply and RAM you don't really trust. Or if you overclock. I try to use quality hardware, since having a computer that gets wrong answers completely defeats the purpose of a having a dumb but fast machine. Also, I want to use svn/git versions of things and make bug reports without wondering if maybe they crashed because my hardware is flaky. If I just wanted my commercial games to run fast, I'd probably be a lot more interested in overclocking.

        Other than disk failures, I've never experienced FS corruption that lost any data on my own systems. I guess I've been lucky. I've used ext3 quite a bit in the past, and I would still use ext3 with data=journal for a FS that I _really_ didn't want to lose anything on after a crash. I use ext3 on my laptop because it dual-boots winxp, and there aren't windoze drivers for any other good filesystems. I have a ~10 year old system (P3-450) as a router/server on my cable modem, and I ssh to it to read my mail (with mutt) from anywhere in the world. It's been running Debian with ext3, and hasn't been re-installed since March 2001. It uses ext3 everywhere, and I've never had a problem with FS corruption.

        I've used reiserfs a few times, and it's been ok. It's not extent-based, so it's slow to delete large files (like ext3).

        I currently use JFS as my root filesystem on my desktop. I've also used it on a few HPC cluster machines I've set up at my former work.

        I think reiser4 has some very interesting ideas. Years ago, I read some of the papers on about making the filesystem "smarter". I've always been a fan of adding interesting features to GNU/Linux, more than having it be a 100% perfect re-implementation of Unix. If reiser4 had caught on, and file managers had started using its features to search files by tags or something, I might be using a file manager instead of continuing to be happy with typing commands in an xterm-equivalent. (I can type faster than I can click, and most of the interesting programs I know how to use, like sed, grep, find, are all traditional Unix command line stuff anyway. )

        I'm lazy, and I haven't compiled my own kernels for a couple years now. I use Ubuntu's kernels, and they don't include reiser4. I could compile my own, of course, but I partly want to do QA testing for Ubuntu.

        It's a shame that the reiser4 project isn't getting much development funding, compared to other FSes, but it's hardly the only case of interesting/good stuff dying because Linux's corporate backers have their own plans. See I've been reading Sabi's blog quite a bit, and he frequently points out how GNU/Linux is suffering from Microsoft cultural hegemony, and occasional land-grabs by kernel devs. e.g. GNU/Linux has grown a few different registry-work-alikes, and more and more things use binary databases instead of editable config files.

        XFS is my filesystem of choice these days. Esp. with dual-core CPUs being standard, XFS's scalability starts to come into play. ext3 will interleave two files written at the same time on different CPUs, but XFS's delayed allocation doesn't have that problem. I don't have big-iron nearly as big as this, though:

        and someone's blog about it:

        edit: forgot to mention this:
        XFS has survived lots of crashes (e.g. when testing out Mesa's i965 DRI driver...), but I very rarely have power interruptions, thanks to a UPS. So I run with write-caches enabled and no write barriers (-o nobarrier). Actually, I use LVM2, and device-mapper doesn't support barriers, so I don't explicitly say nobarrier. On a read-mostly filesystem, like the root or /usr fs, where corruption is a bigger headache (although catchable with debsums), I would enable write barriers. Note that JFS doesn't support write barriers, but ext3 does. Anyone know about any others?

        BTW, I was hoping someone would reply to my brain-dump about XFS I posted previously, before it got pushed off the last page by reiser4 consiracy theories (and blaming things on Jewish people? WTF , there's no call for that. If there are specific Jewish people you think are doing bad things, that's fine. There are lots of Jews who are not nice people, same for most groups. But talking about them as "the Jews" is not sensible, IMHO. Isn't this board moderated, or is that only for first posts from new users. I guess I'll find out, since this'll be my second.) It's probably not a conspiracy, just Linux corporations spending their money on development of what they think will be in their best interest. And unfortunately that's not reiser4.

        I spent maybe a couple hours writing I should probably put it somewhere instead of leaving it buried in this forum, but still, I was hoping someone would read it...
        Last edited by Peter_Cordes; 06 December 2008, 11:17 PM.


        • #74
          I find your information about XFS most insightful, I'm waiting for the first occasion to try out your tweaks
          I had problems with XFS with earlier kernels (2.6.24,2.6.25) I've experienced a few nasty data corruptions (one almost broke my system -_-), but from 2.6.26 onward, everything is well, even with nobarrier... it's rock solid now, and I'm really happy if I can safely enhance its performance.

          Please, use any other color than red... it's totally unreadable on my CRT monitor...


          • #75
            Still, no matter what Jade actually prays for (and others shoud at him for this), proper filesytem tests is a really good idea.
            So, what I wanted to see there is:
            ext3, ext4, jfs, xfs, reiserfs, reiser4.
            And please don't skip reisers as they are fast. We need to test what's out there w/o any exception!
            Tests might include all Phoronix tests and some SVN checkout deletion (like wine or smth big really), compressing a lot of small files, the same with large and so.
            I'm really looking forward to see some objective tests!


            • #76
              Originally posted by Kirurgs View Post
              So, what I wanted to see there is:
              ext3, ext4, jfs, xfs, reiserfs, reiser4.
              No chance of ever seeing Reiser4.


              • #77
                And I wish, Phoronix would test fair.
                Leaving everything on default is not fair. ext3 cheats.


                • #78
                  Originally posted by energyman View Post
                  And I wish, Phoronix would test fair.
                  Leaving everything on default is not fair. ext3 cheats.
                  Why do you think Hans Reiser was so hated by some?

                  The stated reasons are total crap. What was the real reason?


                  • #79

                    It would be fun to see how linux filesystems compare against FAT32. Seems like FAT32 is the lowest common denominator of filesystem, as it comes whith every kind of flash-memory, mp3-player, usb-hdd.


                    • #80
                      fat is very, very slow.