Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

Linux 5.14 SSD Benchmarks With Btrfs vs. EXT4 vs. F2FS vs. XFS

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

  • Linux 5.14 SSD Benchmarks With Btrfs vs. EXT4 vs. F2FS vs. XFS

    Phoronix: Linux 5.14 SSD Benchmarks With Btrfs vs. EXT4 vs. F2FS vs. XFS

    A number of Phoronix readers have been asking about some fresh file-system comparisons on recent kernels. With not having the time to conduct the usual kernel version vs. file-system comparison, here are some fresh benchmarks looking at the Btrfs, EXT4, F2FS, and XFS file-system benchmarks on a speedy WD_BLACK SN850 NVMe solid-state drive...

    https://www.phoronix.com/scan.php?pa...4-File-Systems

  • #2
    How come that brtfs is so slow compared to the older filesystems?
    Is this how we'd expect out of the box ZFS performance too?

    Comment


    • #3
      Firefox is working like trash with btrfs on hdd.

      Comment


      • #4
        Can I haz the same tests, but with btrfs nodatacow added?

        Comment


        • #5
          Originally posted by Volta View Post
          Firefox is working like trash with btrfs on hdd.
          check this:
          https://wiki.archlinux.org/title/profile-sync-daemon

          Comment


          • #6
            Originally posted by shoarmapapi View Post
            How come that brtfs is so slow compared to the older filesystems?
            Is this how we'd expect out of the box ZFS performance too?
            This is by design. btrfs does more work than other file systems, in order to enable its additional functionality.
            In a way this is akin to etx3 being slower than ext2 it replaced, because ext3 was doing journaling. Btrfs loses more performance, tho.

            Comment


            • #7
              Originally posted by shoarmapapi View Post
              How come that brtfs is so slow compared to the older filesystems?
              Is this how we'd expect out of the box ZFS performance too?
              Because there "benchmarks" are useless trash. There is no slightest attempt to match real-world scenarios because Michael will stubbornly refuse to touch the default settings. No-one in their sane mind would enable COW for databases but of course that's exactly what he will do.

              Comment


              • #8
                Nice with updated tests, same issues as last time though. FIO IOPS doesn't benchmark the drives. Since it's only using one process (configurable) to generate and reap the requests we're capped by the performance of one core,

                Comment


                • #9
                  WOW.
                  BTRFS has really come a long way now.
                  Its pretty competetive with other mainstream filesystems.

                  Comment


                  • #10
                    Originally posted by Volta View Post
                    Firefox is working like trash with btrfs on hdd.
                    I think the difference can be felt on SSD as well. In my experience, Firefox launches noticeably faster on ext4 than on btrfs.

                    Comment

                    Working...
                    X