Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

With Linux 2.6.32, Btrfs Gains As EXT4 Recedes

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

  • #41
    for instance benches where OpenSolaris used gcc v3.2 in 32bit mode vs Linux gcc 4.3 in 64bit mode, but such is life. If Solaris people could tailor the compiler, vs Linux people it would be more fair. But not many people has that expertise.
    What we saw at Phoronix were 64 bit OpenSolaris benchmarked against 32 bit Ubuntu and Freebsd. Even running in 64 bit Solaris was slow.

    Btw. Kebabbert is a troll who's trolling not only at Phoronix and who's cross-posting (he wrote similar or even exactly the same things at Phoronix):





    What a performance monster slowlaris is (by Kebabbert):

    Oracle Forums is a community platform where you can discuss Oracle products and services, collaborate with peers, and connect with Oracle experts.




    Last edited by kraftman; 21 December 2009, 08:28 AM.

    Comment


    • #42
      Originally posted by kebabbert View Post
      But the point of a file system is that your data is safe.
      Is it?

      I believe my netbook puts /tmp into RAM, which means that the data in there is completely lost if the machine reboots. That's trading performance for a complete lack of reliabile storage over system restarts.

      I think you'll find that people's needs vary from 'data absolutely must get to the disk and stay there' (e.g. online sales order database) to 'I want performance and if I lose the file on a reboot I don't care' (e.g. said temporary files). Different filesystems serve different needs.

      That said, I agree that a filesystem for general uses (e.g. extN) should put reliability above performance.
      Last edited by movieman; 21 December 2009, 12:58 PM.

      Comment


      • #43
        Originally posted by movieman View Post
        Is it?

        I believe my netbook puts /tmp into RAM, which means that the data in there is completely lost if the machine reboots. That's trading performance for a complete lack of reliabile storage over system restarts.

        I think you'll find that people's needs vary from 'data absolutely must get to the disk and stay there' (e.g. online sales order database) to 'I want performance and if I lose the file on a reboot I don't care' (e.g. said temporary files). Different filesystems serve different needs.

        That said, I agree that a filesystem for general uses (e.g. extN) should put reliability above performance.
        which is supposed to be so. Data in /tmp is supposed to be gone after a reboot. So it is save and even smart to put /tmp into ram. If you have temp data that must survive a reboot use /var/tmp.

        So -your example is completely and utterly pointless.

        Comment


        • #44
          Originally posted by energyman View Post
          So -your example is completely and utterly pointless.
          I was responding to someone who said, and I quote:

          But the point of a file system is that your data is safe.
          Clearly you agree with me that a file system which doesn't provide safe storage of data -- even to the extent of never writing it to disk at all -- can be useful, yet you claim my post is pointless?

          Here's another example for you: I use XFS on MythTV for off-air recordings, because while it has worse behaviour on a power failure than ext3, it also has better performance. I don't much care if I lose the TV show that was recording when the power goes out, because it's pretty much useless if it only recorded 2/3 of the show... I do care if it can't write the file to disk because the file system is busy deleting a large file so writes can't be processed.

          Comment


          • #45
            and you use what for /tmp in ram? tmpfs. A filesystem made for this kind of stuff. You are comapring a 'forget everything' filesystem with a filesystem class that should never ever risk the safety of your data.

            You can not comapre /tmp and /home. Or tmpfs with any disk based filesystem.

            That extX devs think that data is without value and speed everything is not a mindset you should copy.

            Comment


            • #46
              Originally posted by energyman View Post
              and you use what for /tmp in ram? tmpfs. A filesystem made for this kind of stuff. You are comapring a 'forget everything' filesystem with a filesystem class that should never ever risk the safety of your data.

              You can not comapre /tmp and /home. Or tmpfs with any disk based filesystem.

              That extX devs think that data is without value and speed everything is not a mindset you should copy.
              Actually, the ext4 devs seem to be so concerned about safety that they are sacrificing speed by turning on by default options like barrier and data=ordered. Phoronix articles keep mentioning the recent performance regression caused by yet another safety enhancement (see here).

              I'm surprised you would say they think data has no value, when the opposite appears to be true: they're prepared to drop everything for data integrity. Perhaps this is a reaction to complaints from Ubuntu users, but still.

              Personally I wish they would try harder to make sure their safety fixes hurt performance less. I also wish reiser4 had less bugs. Reiser4 is my favorite filesystem - fast (especially with transparent compression enabled) and never loses my data. But it has scared me away with weird bugs (like rm -Rf leaving an undeletable folder). So for now I'm using ext4, and I really don't see what's wrong with it. It seems to be a decent filesystem and has served me well.
              Last edited by StringCheesian; 21 December 2009, 07:39 PM.

              Comment


              • #47
                For what it's worth, multi-threaded ReiserFS performance should improve significantly in kernel 2.6.33 because that version eliminates the Big Kernel Lock from ReiserFS code.

                Comment


                • #48
                  they turn it on NOW. How many versions after ext4 was declared 'stable' - a bad joke that cost a lot of people a lot of data?

                  They did not learn from ext3. Nope. They tuned for speed to wow the masses and now that there is a 'omg ext4 is fast' seed planted, they do some sensible stuff.

                  That is nothing but manipulation.

                  Comment


                  • #49
                    if you have an undeletable folder, you have a corruption.

                    For what it is worth, I am using reiser4 for a long time now, and since many kernel releases it is very very well behaving. It even goes into sync mode when it detects that barriers are not present. I love that. Data is important.

                    Comment


                    • #50
                      This is why XFS rules.
                      Just Kidding

                      I use ext4 for /, ext3 for /home and /boot, xfs for some other data, and tmpfs for /tmp.

                      IMO, XFS is still the best 'stable' filesystem. (Never tried ZFS)

                      The only problem with XFS is that it is impossible to shrink filesystems.

                      Comment

                      Working...
                      X