Page 1 of 3 123 LastLast
Results 1 to 10 of 39

Thread: EXT4, Btrfs, NILFS2 Performance Benchmarks

Hybrid View

  1. #1
    Join Date
    Jan 2007
    Posts
    15,091

    Default EXT4, Btrfs, NILFS2 Performance Benchmarks

    Phoronix: EXT4, Btrfs, NILFS2 Performance Benchmarks

    The past few Linux kernel releases have brought a number of new file-systems to the Linux world, such as with EXT4 having been stabilized in the Linux 2.6.28 kernel, Btrfs being merged into Linux 2.6.29, and most recently the NILFS2 file-system premiering with the Linux 2.6.30 kernel. Other file-systems have been introduced too during the past few Linux kernel release cycles, but these three have been the most talked about and are often looked at as being the next-generation Linux file-systems. Being the benchmarking junkies that we are, we have set out to compare the file-system performance of EXT4, Btrfs, and NILFS2 under Ubuntu using the Linux 2.6.30 kernel. We also looked at how these file-systems compared to EXT3 and XFS.

    http://www.phoronix.com/vr.php?view=13997

  2. #2
    Join Date
    May 2008
    Location
    Germany/NRW
    Posts
    510

    Default

    I guess the performance advantage of ext3 vs ext4 in some benches are due to ext3 defaulting to writeback data mode in 2.6.30 while ext4 still defaults to the slower and more secure ordered data mode, so that's not exactly a fair comparison.

  3. #3

    Default Does this test used btrfs v0.19 from Jun 2009?

    First of all, thanks for the great articles! Phoronix is great!

    Btrfs developers were aware of lower performance from older benchmarks articles, as acknowledged here: http://btrfs.wiki.kernel.org/index.p...e#Benchmarking

    They delivered one improvement on v0.19:
    "In general, v0.19 is a dramatic speed improvement over v0.18 in almost every workload."
    http://btrfs.wiki.kernel.org/index.p....28Jun_2009.29

  4. #4

    Default btrfs v0.19 is post-2.6.30

    ... so the benchmark probably didn't consider the latest v0.19 yet perhaps.

  5. #5
    Join Date
    Jan 2007
    Location
    Germany
    Posts
    2,155

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by andre.goddard View Post
    ... so the benchmark probably didn't consider the latest v0.19 yet perhaps.
    No it didn't. Linux 2.6.31 will include btrfs v0.19+ and therefore the dramatic performance improvements.

  6. #6
    Join Date
    Nov 2008
    Location
    Germany
    Posts
    258

    Default

    What's the point of benchmarking btrfs just before a major format change?

  7. #7
    Join Date
    Jan 2009
    Location
    UK
    Posts
    331

    Default

    Red capslock text and reiser4 propaganda... where have I seen that before?

  8. #8
    Join Date
    May 2008
    Location
    Germany/NRW
    Posts
    510

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Sleuth View Post
    Why do you not mention Reiser's filesystems?
    Isn't it obvious?
    Because Phoronix, whis is actually owned by jews, is part of the conspiracy to keep Reiser4 down. I also think that Michael himself murdered Reiser's wife and framed him for it.
    Well, that'd be one reason. Or perhaps it's actually because Reiser4 is unmaintained, there's no way it's gonna be included in the mainline-kernel anytime soon and because it's all-around pretty much dead.
    Your choose, I guess. I'd go with the second awnser. :P
    Also: Welcome back Jade, long time no see. I thought you were banned?

  9. #9
    Join Date
    Apr 2009
    Location
    Toronto/North Bay Canada
    Posts
    877

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Sleuth View Post
    HANS REISER AND HIS FILESYSTEMS.

    REISER4 HOWTOS.

    Sabotage of Reiser 4:

    The HANS REISER Murder Trial. Timeline and Analysis.
    You have gotz to be kidding me...

  10. #10
    Join Date
    Jun 2009
    Posts
    24

    Default

    when the database numbers are as far off as they are in this test it makes me suspect that the fsyncs are being ignored by some filesystems and not by others. none of these filesystems are so far apart in design (except for possibly nilfs) that a 20x-60x variation is reasonable.

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •