Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

Linux 4.7 - Btrfs vs. EXT4 vs. F2FS vs. XFS vs. NTFS Benchmarks

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

  • Linux 4.7 - Btrfs vs. EXT4 vs. F2FS vs. XFS vs. NTFS Benchmarks

    Phoronix: Linux 4.7 - Btrfs vs. EXT4 vs. F2FS vs. XFS vs. NTFS Benchmarks

    Continuing on from yesterday's Linux 4.4 To 4.7 - EXT4 vs. F2FS vs. Btrfs Benchmarks comparison, here is a wider look at mainline file-systems on the Linux 4.7. File-systems tested on the NVMe SSD included Btrfs, EXT4, F2FS, XFS, and NTFS...

    http://www.phoronix.com/scan.php?pag...x-4.7-FS-5-Way

  • #2
    Question: do the sqlite and postgresql tests use default btrfs parameters/attributes? COW is supposed to be really bad for Postgresql's performance, and I was wondering if you could try an experiment where data COW is disabled (whole subdir or subvolume).

    Comment


    • #3
      i can't believe that there is something in which ntfs is better than others....

      Comment


      • #4
        Originally posted by edmon View Post
        i can't believe that there is something in which ntfs is better than others....
        Fwiw, I don't know of any other FS that has aged as well as NTFS did. I mean, it's like 20 yo and still going.

        Comment


        • #5
          Michael,

          Remind me why you keep testing NTFS which is a user space file system so it will never reach the speed of native file systems and specially for small IO blocks its performance is abysmal.

          Comment


          • #6
            Originally posted by birdie View Post
            Michael,

            Remind me why you keep testing NTFS which is a user space file system so it will never reach the speed of native file systems and specially for small IO blocks its performance is abysmal.
            For the same reasons why audiophiles in their codec listening tests always include a hidden duplicate of the uncompressed sound and a version deliberately corrupted by a known bad codec. It's a reference to validate the method.

            Comment


            • #7
              Originally posted by bug77 View Post

              Fwiw, I don't know of any other FS that has aged as well as NTFS did. I mean, it's like 20 yo and still going.
              XFS is pretty much as old. Ext3 is not young either.

              Comment


              • #8
                Originally posted by bug77 View Post
                Fwiw, I don't know of any other FS that has aged as well as NTFS did. I mean, it's like 20 yo and still going.
                NTFS driver for linux =! NTFS driver for windows.

                He meant that NTFS should suck on linux on all benches, being a FUSE driver and not in kernel land.

                Comment


                • #9
                  well Btrfs does ot behave so badly, take into accoutn that for xfs/ext4 you will have to add LVM and/or mdadm on top of it. I bet btrfs is not so bad compared to ext4 on lvm+mdam

                  Comment


                  • #10
                    Choosing a filesystem on the Samsung 950 Pro from these results would be either XFS or EXT4.
                    They both won 3 benchmarks each, however XFS won supremely on benchmark 5, miles ahead of EXT4.
                    Last edited by DJViking; 08-05-2016, 06:58 AM.

                    Comment

                    Working...
                    X