Btrfs Gets Big Changes, Features In Linux 3.14 Kernel

[zman0900]

Just another symptom of the poor project management for btrfs. That is the sort of project that could be completed relatively quickly and provide some significant benefits.

Significant benefits such as? They already have some compression options, why would lz4 be significantly better?

[Ericg]

But then you'd have to deal with a separate /boot partition and all that crap, right?

Whys that such a big deal? Just fire off a 100mb /boot and leave it be

[jwilliams]

As far as I know, no one is actually working on this right now. It doesn't seem as though there is anyone who is interested enough in this at the moment, as there continues to be lots going on in btrfs development.

Just another symptom of the poor project management for btrfs. That is the sort of project that could be completed relatively quickly and provide some significant benefits.

[jwilliams]

Is there or will there be an effort to make ensure that BTRFS is as fast as or faster than EXT4? I know BTRFS is all about features rather than performance, but the average home user doesn't need all of those advanced features. For me, faster makes a less painful time redoing my operating system and transfering all of my files every 6 months.

For certain operations, a COW filesystem will never be as fast as ext4. It is just not possible.

Perhaps if you turned off COW, then it may be feasible for btrfs to match, or nearly match, ext4 in almost all types of IO. I'm not saying it does now, but it would at least seem an attainable goal, in the unlikely chance that the btrfs developers made it a high priority.

[johnc]

If you have an ssd use f2fs. That seems to be pretty much the fastest one around. Well, maybe not for db, or heavily queued work.

But then you'd have to deal with a separate /boot partition and all that crap, right?

[zanny]

Is there or will there be an effort to make ensure that BTRFS is as fast as or faster than EXT4? I know BTRFS is all about features rather than performance, but the average home user doesn't need all of those advanced features. For me, faster makes a less painful time redoing my operating system and transfering all of my files every 6 months.

Checksum file integrity, transparent compression, and cow snapshots are features I couldn't live without.

[liam]

Is there or will there be an effort to make ensure that BTRFS is as fast as or faster than EXT4? I know BTRFS is all about features rather than performance, but the average home user doesn't need all of those advanced features. For me, faster makes a less painful time redoing my operating system and transfering all of my files every 6 months.

If you have an ssd use f2fs. That seems to be pretty much the fastest one around. Well, maybe not for db, or heavily queued work.

[mercutio]

Is there or will there be an effort to make ensure that BTRFS is as fast as or faster than EXT4? I know BTRFS is all about features rather than performance, but the average home user doesn't need all of those advanced features. For me, faster makes a less painful time redoing my operating system and transfering all of my files every 6 months.

they're both pretty fast for most purposes, and pretty slow for things like maildir mailboxes.

[Prescience500]

Is there or will there be an effort to make ensure that BTRFS is as fast as or faster than EXT4? I know BTRFS is all about features rather than performance, but the average home user doesn't need all of those advanced features. For me, faster makes a less painful time redoing my operating system and transfering all of my files every 6 months.

[WonderWoofy]

still no lz4 support

As far as I know, no one is actually working on this right now. It doesn't seem as though there is anyone who is interested enough in this at the moment, as there continues to be lots going on in btrfs development.