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

  • #41
    Originally posted by [email protected] View Post
    Lets take a moment to appreciate how good EXT4 is. Those tests show why it is the default in most distros.
    i don't see "time for snapshot creation" and "time for rearranging partitions because relative size was guessed wrong and now your distro upgrade failed and left root fs full in inconsistent state" among those useless tests
    Last edited by pal666; 27 August 2021, 08:46 PM.

    Comment


    • #42
      Originally posted by Hans Bull View Post
      Waiting for bcachefs ...
      how many decades?

      Comment


      • #43
        Originally posted by foobaz View Post
        ZFS is the best choice when you can't afford downtime, data loss, or data corruption.
        you clearly never looked at their bug tracker

        Comment


        • #44
          Originally posted by S.Pam View Post
          You mean people that value data integrity?
          he means database takes care of data integrity even without any filesystem(on raw block device). that's database's job

          Comment


          • #45
            Originally posted by intelfx View Post
            Maybe, but these mechanisms don't integrate with self-healing features of checksumming filesystems.
            well, if we measure in self-healing mode, then we should drop all non-self-healing filesystems from competition, then btrfs will compete alone

            Comment


            • #46
              @Michael can we have a performance test of ext4/xfs on lvm vs btrfs?

              Comment


              • #47
                Originally posted by Hans Bull View Post
                Waiting for bcachefs ...
                I know this is B-cache-file-system, but every time I read it I see B-C-A-chefs, and I think, what is that?!

                Comment


                • #48
                  Originally posted by zoner View Post
                  I think that this discussion is missing some important variables that directly impact such as the speed of booting and the speed of loading various applications. Some of those variables are:

                  1. The age of the computer being tested
                  2. The age and quality of the motherboard
                  3. The speed of the hdd or ssd and how such drives differ

                  and here comes a big on:

                  4. What distro a user is using and all of tweaks and changes inherent to any distro

                  5. What are all twinks and changes that a user may implement

                  6. Because each of us has their own thing going on in their brain, we each have a different sense of speed
                  I think Michael is trying to keep as many factors as possible constant, as one ought to do in any test. Also, I can't imagine how Michael could find the time to run this test across a variety of machines and distros.

                  Comment


                  • #49
                    Originally posted by S.Pam View Post
                    You mean people that value data integrity?
                    If that's a meaningful parameter for you, then you obviously have only one choice for a filesystem and these benchmarks are trash for you. Or then you worry about performance with equal feature-sets and these benchmarks are trash for you.

                    Comment


                    • #50
                      Originally posted by flower View Post

                      many hdds and ssds use crc32 internally to verify data. as btrfs uses crc32 too its pretty useless.
                      and there is still integritysetup - if you use an external drive for integrity it doesnt have ANY performance penality. i am using this in an raid10 setup for quite a while (checksum is sha256)
                      BTRFS supports a few different checksum algorithms. Just a few weeks ago I actually "upgraded" to XXHASH. BTRFS would also support your precious SHA256 as well.

                      Comment

                      Working...
                      X