Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

Linux 3.7 File-System Benchmarks: EXT4, Btrfs, XFS

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

  • phoronix
    started a topic Linux 3.7 File-System Benchmarks: EXT4, Btrfs, XFS

    Linux 3.7 File-System Benchmarks: EXT4, Btrfs, XFS

    Phoronix: Linux 3.7 File-System Benchmarks: EXT4, Btrfs, XFS

    In this article are benchmarks of the latest Linux 3.7 kernel development code of the EXT4, XFS, and Btrfs file-systems.

    http://www.phoronix.com/vr.php?view=18153

  • gilboa
    replied
    Originally posted by bwat47 View Post
    Yep, and don't most modern SSD's do some kind of compression at the firmware level anyway?
    Not most - some (AFAIR SandForce based chipsets).

    - Gilboa

    Leave a comment:


  • bwat47
    replied
    Originally posted by jwilliams View Post
    No, they prove nothing of the sort. All they prove is that if you are writing a stream of zeros to your drive, the performance will be better with compression. With real data that does not compress so easily, the performance will be completely different than the benchmarks.
    Yep, and don't most modern SSD's do some kind of compression at the firmware level anyway?

    Leave a comment:


  • tomato
    replied
    Originally posted by Nextweek View Post
    It is considered inappropriate to claim something without a reference, could you link me to where it says that the tests were just streams of zeros?
    The code for 3 different FS benchmark utilites I inspected myself say so.

    Basically any benchmark that doesn't write just stream of zeros is "a bit" vocal about it.

    Leave a comment:


  • fuzz
    replied
    Btrfs decides whether or not something is worth compressing and only compresses it if it is worth it.

    EDIT:
    Well it's a parameter you can pass, at least. I think this is the default behavior.

    Leave a comment:


  • jwilliams
    replied
    Originally posted by Nextweek View Post
    could you link me to where it says that the tests were just streams of zeros?
    Name a benchmark that you are interested in, and if you lack the basic google skills to look it up, I will help you.

    Leave a comment:


  • Xake
    replied
    So where in this test do you think Michael hit those performance-losses a SSD can show due to too heavy wear?

    Leave a comment:


  • Nextweek
    replied
    Could you provide reference?

    Originally posted by jwilliams View Post
    No, they prove nothing of the sort. All they prove is that if you are writing a stream of zeros to your drive, the performance will be better with compression. With real data that does not compress so easily, the performance will be completely different than the benchmarks.
    It is considered inappropriate to claim something without a reference, could you link me to where it says that the tests were just streams of zeros?

    Leave a comment:


  • jwilliams
    replied
    Originally posted by Nextweek View Post
    Certainly the benchmarks from last year prove the compression with Btrfs vastly improves performance:
    No, they prove nothing of the sort. All they prove is that if you are writing a stream of zeros to your drive, the performance will be better with compression. With real data that does not compress so easily, the performance will be completely different than the benchmarks.

    Leave a comment:


  • Nextweek
    replied
    Hard to compare

    I've tried both Ext4 and Btrfs on my laptops Samsung SSD and found that Btrfs with compression and discard works the best for me. Certainly the benchmarks from last year prove the compression with Btrfs vastly improves performance:

    http://www.phoronix.com/scan.php?pag...lzo_2638&num=2

    Leave a comment:

Working...
X