Linux 6.13-rc3 Released With KVM Caching For "Wildly Expensive" Intel CPUID Handling

Collapse
X
 
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts
  • phoronix
    Administrator
    • Jan 2007
    • 67377

    Linux 6.13-rc3 Released With KVM Caching For "Wildly Expensive" Intel CPUID Handling

    Phoronix: Linux 6.13-rc3 Released With KVM Caching For "Wildly Expensive" Intel CPUID Handling

    Linus Torvalds announced the release this evening of the Linux 6.13-rc3 kernel as Linux 6.13 works its way to stable release by late January...

    Phoronix, Linux Hardware Reviews, Linux hardware benchmarks, Linux server benchmarks, Linux benchmarking, Desktop Linux, Linux performance, Open Source graphics, Linux How To, Ubuntu benchmarks, Ubuntu hardware, Phoronix Test Suite
  • pWe00Iri3e7Z9lHOX2Qx
    Senior Member
    • Jul 2020
    • 1595

    #2
    So everything looks normal so far. xfs may stand out in the shortlog below, but the bulk of the diff (ignoring that generated unicode table) is still mostly random driver updates.
    XFS is aging pretty well. Performance is quite good. It has fancy stuff like reflinks. At this point I'm not sure why most distros that default to ext4 aren't defaulting to xfs instead. It's too bad Stratis has never gone anywhere and even Red Hat doesn't seem to give a crap about it.

    Comment

    • -MacNuke-
      Senior Member
      • Nov 2012
      • 405

      #3
      Originally posted by pWe00Iri3e7Z9lHOX2Qx View Post

      XFS is aging pretty well. Performance is quite good. It has fancy stuff like reflinks. At this point I'm not sure why most distros that default to ext4 aren't defaulting to xfs instead. It's too bad Stratis has never gone anywhere and even Red Hat doesn't seem to give a crap about it.
      Because it still tends to corrupt badly on power outages. Not a problem on servers with backup power but nothing for consumers.

      Comment

      • NathanSamson
        Junior Member
        • Jul 2021
        • 7

        #4
        Originally posted by -MacNuke- View Post

        Because it still tends to corrupt badly on power outages. Not a problem on servers with backup power but nothing for consumers.
        Would not love this on my server either.

        A server is built for redundancy, so yes you have backup power. But you also have a redundancy in case your power fails, you don't want your data corrupted...

        I guess you have backups for that, but cheese hole principle, the more holes you have, the more chance they line-up and you get a hole through and through...

        Comment

        • MichuButAnother
          Junior Member
          • Dec 2024
          • 1

          #5
          Originally posted by -MacNuke- View Post

          Because it still tends to corrupt badly on power outages. Not a problem on servers with backup power but nothing for consumers.
          I use XFS on both my desktop and server, and I get power outages pretty often - never had an XFS partition or any files become corrupted.

          Comment

          • NathanSamson
            Junior Member
            • Jul 2021
            • 7

            #6
            Originally posted by -MacNuke- View Post

            Because it still tends to corrupt badly on power outages. Not a problem on servers with backup power but nothing for consumers.
            Also (I didn't check this before), but XFS seems to have metadata journaling, making it resilient against power outages.... Similar as EXT4 (and any modern general purpose filesystem I would imagine)

            Not sure if you where sarcastic, misinformed, trolling, or I got something wrong...

            Comment

            • NateHubbard
              Senior Member
              • Mar 2015
              • 588

              #7
              Originally posted by pWe00Iri3e7Z9lHOX2Qx View Post

              At this point I'm not sure why most distros that default to ext4 aren't defaulting to xfs instead.
              Because it doesn't really perform any better. There are benchmarks of both on this very site. It's simply not worth running for most people.

              Comment

              Working...
              X