Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

Another Look At The Bcachefs Performance on Linux 6.7

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

  • sniglom
    replied
    The introduction page says that the 64 core 7980x is running at 8.21GHz. That seems to be on the high side of things, 3.2GHz is more reasonable, typo?

    Leave a comment:


  • Quackdoc
    replied
    Originally posted by curfew View Post
    Ah, the denial is strong here. Pointless bickering about everything except the topic of the article. Bcachefs performed poorly and no-one is ready to acknowledge it.
    this is considered poorly? Bcachefs beat BTRFS in 2/5 benchmarks here excluding the thread increases since they followed trend. and this isn't even a release kernel yet

    Leave a comment:


  • cynic
    replied
    Originally posted by andyprough View Post

    Cool story, leave a link to the bug reports you submitted, I'm sure the devs would have been all over this horrendous data destroying conspiracy you uncovered. We should all be able to see for ourselves how the devs addressed it.
    bitrotting is not a bug of the filesystem.
    next time, instead of showing off and call other people conspiracy theorist, just use a search engine to at least undertand what you are talking about.

    Leave a comment:


  • cynic
    replied
    Originally posted by NotMine999 View Post

    Are you just passing hot air here? Or do you have actual proof to back up your claims?

    I have used Ext4 for all my boot volumes ('/' root & /boot) for the past 15 years simply because it is SOooo easy to recover if something fails.

    Have I had SSDs fail? Yes I have. We just install a new SSD; load up a new copy of the OS (netboot that install so no shuffling of CDs or remembering that specific USB key that rarely gets updated); restore from backup any config files that are different from default; then reboot the system back to where it should be. Application restoral, if it resides on the 'System' drive (but it should not per "house rules"), is handled differently in my shop.

    Sure, disk imaging using something like Clonezilla would be a useful idea for our 'System' drives, but my administrative/development/teaching time is limited. The few "house techs" on staff know how (and have documented procedures) to replace hardware, netboot an OS install, and restore config files from backup ... among other tasks.

    YMMV
    you would have save yourself a lot of time just googling what bitrot is instead of writing all this stuff.
    bitrot is a very known phenomenon, no need to backup my claims here: just learn what it is and why a non full-checksumming filesystem as ext4 is vulnerable.

    also, you risk backupping corrupted data and then restoring corrupted data.

    Leave a comment:


  • leSh0uno5ee
    replied
    Originally posted by curfew View Post
    Ah, the denial is strong here. Pointless bickering about everything except the topic of the article. Bcachefs performed poorly and no-one is ready to acknowledge it.
    This is a good point.

    I myself also have great expectations toward bcachefs so I'm happy seeing it lagging behind, because knowing Kent (not personally ofc, but his temper) this will be fixed soon just because of pure ego.

    Again, as I've pointed out before, this was not a good test. This was kind of interesting, but not a good one. Why on Earth would anyone compare extX with btrfs, f2fs with bcachefs? And where's ZFS? Totally different FSes for totally different use cases. A good sysadmin/engineer/architect knows what kind of FS should be used for what purposes so this kind of test is pointless.

    Leave a comment:


  • andyprough
    replied
    Originally posted by cynic View Post

    good luck with bitrotting data!
    Cool story, leave a link to the bug reports you submitted, I'm sure the devs would have been all over this horrendous data destroying conspiracy you uncovered. We should all be able to see for ourselves how the devs addressed it.

    Leave a comment:


  • leSh0uno5ee
    replied
    Originally posted by skeevy420 View Post

    ... the RAIDZ of Theseus.
    this.... this is beautiful

    Leave a comment:


  • Snaipersky
    replied
    Originally posted by curfew View Post
    Ah, the denial is strong here. Pointless bickering about everything except the topic of the article. Bcachefs performed poorly and no-one is ready to acknowledge it.
    The takeaway is that it performed significantly better than in initial testing, when it was committed to mainline with defaults building with every debug feature available. So while it isn't the fastest, it pulled a couple wins and offers a good set of features without cripplingly poor performance.

    Leave a comment:


  • curfew
    replied
    Ah, the denial is strong here. Pointless bickering about everything except the topic of the article. Bcachefs performed poorly and no-one is ready to acknowledge it.

    Leave a comment:


  • edgmnt
    replied
    Originally posted by mrg666 View Post
    Ext4 still looks competent though. Thanks for the benchmarks.
    To be fair, it's not really hard for some of those benchmarks.

    Leave a comment:

Working...
X