Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

EXT4, Btrfs, XFS & F2FS On Linux 4.6 Through 4.9

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

  • EXT4, Btrfs, XFS & F2FS On Linux 4.6 Through 4.9

    Phoronix: EXT4, Btrfs, XFS & F2FS On Linux 4.6 Through 4.9

    For those curious how various Linux file-systems have evolved since Linux 4.6, here are some fresh benchmarks of the Btrfs, EXT4, F2FS, and XFS file-systems being tested on Linux 4.6 vs. 4.7 vs. 4.8 vs. 4.9 with a solid-state drive for looking at any performance changes.

    http://www.phoronix.com/vr.php?view=23877

  • #2
    Thank you Michael! Very helpful

    Comment


    • #3
      I can't believe that SUSE chose btrfs as default FS, it is obviouse that btrfs is not production ready!!!

      Comment


      • #4
        It would be interesting to see ithe CPU utilization during the tests - to see whether a FS is CPU or IO limited.

        Comment


        • #5
          I can't believe that SUSE chose btrfs as default FS, it is obviouse that btrfs is not production ready!!!
          It depends. You get a lot fancy features, the price you pay is a bit of performance. I am using Btrfs since linux-3.10 and experienced reliability issues the last time with 3.14 or so - I like and use the cool features (snapshots, compression, auto-defrag) and willed to take the performance hit. But I agree it is a controversial step.

          Comment


          • #6
            I was a bit surprised on xfs' good performance but more surprised on btrfs' worse performance. But yes, it has cool features and I would think that its overall performance will be substantially improved over time. So maybe SUSE is doing the right thing, just give it time.

            Comment


            • #7
              It would be nice to see how BTRFS compares with cow disabled.

              Comment


              • #8
                Originally posted by edmon View Post
                I can't believe that SUSE chose btrfs as default FS, it is obviouse that btrfs is not production ready!!!
                I've been a happy BTRFS user for over 2 years now and haven't had any issues! FS isn't just about performance, it is also about FS functionality. If you throw in ZFS into the bench list it would be the worst of all the FS types however Enterprises love to use them due to functionality. It is the same with BTRFS, and BTRFS is getting better literally every day! Join the mailing list if you don't believe me, there's a tonne of activity!

                Comment


                • #9
                  two questions:
                  1. is scsi.mq enabled?
                  2. can we have test on HDD?

                  Thanks.

                  Comment


                  • #10
                    Originally posted by edmon View Post
                    I can't believe that SUSE chose btrfs as default FS, it is obviouse that btrfs is not production ready!!!
                    Considering what is offering, some performance hit is acceptable.
                    Can you run Snapper on ext4 or XFS to roll back your system to before an update? No.

                    Originally posted by LinAGKar
                    It would be nice to see how BTRFS compares with cow disabled.
                    If you disable CoW you lose also checksumming, so it's not btrfs anymore, but a "ext4 with b-trees".

                    Comment

                    Working...
                    X