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

[renox]

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.

Yet, it trounced the other FS in the SQLLite benchmark..

[pmorph]

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.

It's still interesting to know how big of a penalty you are paying, in case you are forced to use it.

[starshipeleven]

Yet, it trounced the other FS in the SQLLite benchmark..

which shouldn't happen given that the driver is on FUSE and not in kernel, It's far more likely that something is wrong with that driver/benchmark than the driver actually outperforming the others.

[birdie]

Yet, it trounced the other FS in the SQLLite benchmark..

Yeah, smartass, because FUSE doesn't properly implement datasync().

[bug77]

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.

I used XFS until I managed to corrupt my partition table (my fault not XFS'). And the I discovered how many tools are out there to recover data from EXT partitions and how few for XFS.
Since then I have come to value tooling about as much as performance.
Fwiw, I think XFS still handles huge files better than EXT, so there are reasons to use it. Either that, or because it beats EXT precisely in the areas you use most.

[duby229]

I'm still using mdadm and ext4. Why? Because it works and genkernel makes it so easy and awesome. Btrfs doesn't work and no tool available makes it easy or awesome.

[strtj]

XFS is pretty much as old. Ext3 is not young either.

The first XFS release was for IRIX 5.3 in 1994 and the first NTFS release was for NT 3.1 in 1993. XFS really has aged spectacularly. Though compatibility is an interesting question - while I assume that you could read an original NTFS or XFS filesystem on a current OS, could you easily create a filesystem today that could be read by those original OSes?

[cj.wijtmans]

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

I dont remember ever using lvm or mdam so what are you on about?

[andreano]

FUSE doesn't properly implement datasync()

That should disqualify NTFS from any kind of database write benchmark, at least. Thanks for the crucial detail!

Some judgement of validity of results is so underrated for consumer products in general, also in hardware benchmarking – I lost an SSD once I had power failure, which makes me suspicious that datasync() wasn't implemented all the way down.

[137ben]

The only filesystems I have on my systems are Ext4 (on Linux), ZFS (on BSD), and NTFS (on, ah, you know). Frankly, I'm shocked that NTFS managed to win any benchmarks at all.