Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

Linux 5.5 SSD RAID 0/1/5/6/10 Benchmarks Of Btrfs / EXT4 / F2FS / XFS

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

  • Linux 5.5 SSD RAID 0/1/5/6/10 Benchmarks Of Btrfs / EXT4 / F2FS / XFS

    Phoronix: Linux 5.5 SSD RAID 0/1/5/6/10 Benchmarks Of Btrfs / EXT4 / F2FS / XFS

    Last month were benchmarks of RAID benchmarks on four hard drives in not visiting the Linux HDD RAID performance in a while. Stemming from that article were requests of fresh tests of the SSD RAID performance on Linux 5.5 Git, so here are those results for single drive performance and RAID0 / RAID1 / RAID5 / RAID6 / RAID10.

    http://www.phoronix.com/vr.php?view=28812

  • #2
    What is the major issue why RAID 1 is so slow on BTRFS ?

    Comment


    • #3
      Something isnt right here. Can you do the tests with BFQ instead of MQ-Deadline? Also, turn off the atime. Noone needs it.

      Comment


      • #4
        Would be nice to include ZFS to the mix. I wonder how that compares to btrfs.

        Comment


        • #5
          Shame BTRFS is lagging behind in the performance category. XFS has made some nice leaps and bounds but, however no Windows compatibility for that one. (if that matters to you)

          Comment


          • #6
            I've been using XFS for many years on 100+ servers and desktops, its a great file system, reliable and fast.

            Unfortunately, there is one major drawback, it does not support shrinking. Ultimately, this is a major disadvantage for cloud providers that need to shrink/grow filesystems on virtual machines and system images.

            One sad example, is CentOS under various cloud providers, it has been modified to use EXT4 instead of the default XFS, due to the inability of XFS to shrink.


            Maybe who ever is sponsoring XFS does not care to invest in shrink functionality, but ultimately they are shooting themselves in the foot.

            Comment


            • #7
              Originally posted by theriddick View Post
              Shame BTRFS is lagging behind in the performance category. XFS has made some nice leaps and bounds but, however no Windows compatibility for that one. (if that matters to you)
              XFS isn't a CoW filesystem. A filesystem that lacks certain features (that imply bookkeeping overheads) is necessarily going to be faster, or at the very least easier to optimize. I don't know why so many people fail to understand that comparing the performance of a CoW filesystem to a non-CoW filesystem is not an apples-to-apples comparison.

              You either want a CoW filesystem or you don't. If you don't, use XFS and enjoy the performance. If you do, XFS just isn't an option. Comparing them is pretty useless for any purpose other than masturbatory benchmarking...

              Comment


              • #8
                Originally posted by xinorom View Post
                You either want a CoW filesystem or you don't. If you don't, use XFS and enjoy the performance. If you do, XFS just isn't an option. Comparing them is pretty useless for any purpose other than masturbatory benchmarking...
                Indeed. With COW you pay a bit of performance, but you get snapshotting, some extra reliability and other features for free. None of that is reflected in the benchmarks.

                Ever since SSDs have become the norm, filesystem features (like snapshotting, data compression, online resizing, send-receive, subvolumes, etc) outweigh benchmark performance in most cases.

                Comment


                • #9
                  Zfs and Btrfs compared to plain filesystems https://markmcb.com/2020/01/07/five-years-of-btrfs/

                  Comment


                  • #10
                    It's ironic that it's in RAID56, where btrfs has received so much criticism, that it is competitive. (Fortunately this is also the area that I want to use it in next.)

                    The performance in single mode is disappointing, given that this is the usage of it that is most-recommended.

                    Comment

                    Working...
                    X