Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

Google To Switch To EXT4, Hires Ted To Code

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

  • not.sure
    replied
    Originally posted by bnolsen View Post
    I haven't run ext4, I'm assuming the time to fsck hasn't improved much.
    I think that is something that was actually significantly improved.

    Leave a comment:


  • bnolsen
    replied
    ext4 is safe, probably not fast.

    That being said, where I used to work they *still* use reiserfs3. JFS & XFS just flat aren't stable, they aren't dependable under hardware failure or conditions of power failure (wall or ups, take your pick). The biggest beef I had in the past with the ext? series is the time to fsck is extremely excessive. reiserfs even with rebuild-tree could be back online dramatically sooner than ext? with 16 drive raid6's.

    I haven't run ext4, I'm assuming the time to fsck hasn't improved much.

    Leave a comment:


  • phtpht
    replied
    Google's Michael Rubin shared that they chose EXT4 after benchmarking it as well as XFS and JFS (possibly with our Phoronix Test Suite carrying out some of the testing, which they have used in other areas).
    I'm surprised they didn't choose ext3 on ubuntu.

    Leave a comment:


  • Yfrwlf
    replied
    Originally posted by wooptoo View Post
    Sometimes I regret switching from ReiserFS.
    So shrink it or use another drive with RFS and compare the two or do a benchmark. Also, note the differences in features, and then decide overall which you prefer.

    Let us know. :P

    Leave a comment:


  • wooptoo
    replied
    With the Linux 2.6.32 kernel, EXT4 lost much ground while Btrfs gained and before that a single commit severely dampened the FS performance.
    It became so slow on my machine that sometimes my friggin cursor freezes.

    ...the performance of EXT4 is looking to be even worse with the forthcoming Linux 2.6.33 kernel.
    oh boy...

    Sometimes I regret switching from ReiserFS.

    Leave a comment:


  • bugmenot
    replied
    deleted - it was unfair of me to say this.

    @ Phoronix - Keep up the good work, but please do not suggest that the PTS was used when other benchmarking apps used were listed, but not PTS.
    Last edited by bugmenot; 15 January 2010, 10:49 AM.

    Leave a comment:


  • Michael
    replied
    Originally posted by apaige View Post
    It would have carried a bit more weight had you mentionned that in the part I quoted. Also, [citation needed]
    Clarification added.

    Leave a comment:


  • apaige
    replied
    Originally posted by Michael View Post
    Google does use PTS...
    It would have carried a bit more weight had you mentionned that in the part I quoted. Also, [citation needed]

    Leave a comment:


  • kernelOfTruth
    replied
    Originally posted by Michael View Post
    Google does use PTS...
    well - you guys know what that means ?

    it can't be too bad

    great work on PTS guys !

    Leave a comment:


  • khaije1
    replied
    you all realize this is great new right? Google is knockin' 'em out the park lately.

    w/r/t PTS, it's a sister (or some other more appropriate close relation) project. Calling any reference to it a 'shameless plug' is strikingly myopic.

    Leave a comment:

Working...
X