Page 1 of 5 123 ... LastLast
Results 1 to 10 of 68

Thread: With Linux 2.6.32, Btrfs Gains As EXT4 Recedes

Hybrid View

  1. #1
    Join Date
    Jan 2007
    Posts
    14,630

    Default With Linux 2.6.32, Btrfs Gains As EXT4 Recedes

    Phoronix: With Linux 2.6.32, Btrfs Gains As EXT4 Recedes

    We have published articles containing EXT4 benchmarks many times now going back to our original real world benchmarks of EXT4 to when Ubuntu 9.04 received EXT4 support and when we ran a variety of file-system benchmarks on an Intel X25-E SSD. We had also thrown in EXT4 numbers when benchmarking Btrfs (and again with Btrfs 0.19) along with NILFS2 benchmarks. Each time has been with a different kernel and the performance of the different Linux file-systems continue to change as each file-system matures and picks up different features. Though with the Linux 2.6.32 kernel the EXT4 performance had changed a great deal due to a change that provides better data integrity on writes but at a significant performance cost. To see how this changes the Linux file-system landscape, atop the latest Linux kernel we have a fresh set of benchmarks for EXT3, EXT4, XFS, ReiserFS, and Btrfs.

    http://www.phoronix.com/vr.php?view=14445

  2. #2
    Join Date
    Jan 2007
    Location
    Germany
    Posts
    2,124

    Default

    As far as I know, SSD mode is activated by default nowadays with btrfs. Are you sure it was disabled?

    Anyways, here's my future predictions:

    - btrfs will not be avaible with Ubuntu 10.04
    - btrfs will be avaible as an option for Ubuntu 10.10 which ships Linux 2.6.35/2.6.36
    - I will use btrfs with Ubuntu 10.10 and it will seriously rock
    - btrfs will become the default filesystem and replace ext4 in most mainstream distributions in early 2011

  3. #3
    Join Date
    Oct 2009
    Posts
    122

    Default

    Again. Strange comparison based upon Ubuntu system. Why?

    It should be noticed, that Ubuntu Ext3 does not use barriers by default in order to look much faster. But this is big lie, putting users data into the danger!

    Typical Ext3 speed on distribution, that care safety of users data, would be much slower in these graphs.

  4. #4
    Join Date
    Nov 2008
    Posts
    69

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by next9 View Post
    It should be noticed, that Ubuntu Ext3 does not use barriers by default in order to look much faster. But this is big lie, putting users data into the danger!

    Typical Ext3 speed on distribution, that care safety of users data, would be much slower in these graphs.
    I was/am suspicious of the Ext3 results - especially since when I moved from ext3 -> ext4 I found a huge performance boost in booting as did most others.

  5. #5
    Join Date
    May 2009
    Posts
    30

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Kazade View Post
    I was/am suspicious of the Ext3 results - especially since when I moved from ext3 -> ext4 I found a huge performance boost in booting as did most others.
    Sure, but what kernel version are you using? Phoronix have already pointed out very recently that there is a serious ext4 performance regression in the latest kernel (2.6.32) compared to previous releases.

  6. #6
    Join Date
    Nov 2009
    Posts
    328

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by next9 View Post
    Again. Strange comparison based upon Ubuntu system. Why?

    It should be noticed, that Ubuntu Ext3 does not use barriers by default in order to look much faster. But this is big lie, putting users data into the danger!

    Typical Ext3 speed on distribution, that care safety of users data, would be much slower in these graphs.
    Totally i agree.

    Under my point of view the policy of phoronix of benchmarking always at default settings creates unfair conditions (and misinformation to non aware lectors). On this case 1 filesystem is running without barriers whereas the other have barriers enabled.

  7. #7
    Join Date
    Jul 2008
    Location
    Wrocław/Poland
    Posts
    37

    Default

    Agreed, maybe Phoronix should choose better Linux distribution to benchmark file systems performance with default settings.
    Otherwise those graphs are not file systems benchmarks but rather Ubuntu experience benchmarks -> completely worthless for broader audience.

  8. #8
    Join Date
    Jun 2009
    Posts
    58

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by next9 View Post
    Again. Strange comparison based upon Ubuntu system. Why?

    It should be noticed, that Ubuntu Ext3 does not use barriers by default in order to look much faster. But this is big lie, putting users data into the danger!

    Typical Ext3 speed on distribution, that care safety of users data, would be much slower in these graphs.
    Ouch! This is lame at best. Editors please put a big fat flashy red warning on every page of the article that the tests are massively deceiving.

  9. #9
    Join Date
    Apr 2008
    Posts
    101

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by d2kx View Post
    - btrfs will not be avaible with Ubuntu 10.04
    this one is wrong already.

  10. #10
    Join Date
    Jul 2007
    Posts
    403

    Default

    btfrs seems to be just a slight change in ext4 to allow it to do the windows style rollback. I don't think I'm going to use it. It's great if you want to rollback system to previous time test something but even with all the faith I have in the linux guys it seems just a tad to dangerous for daily driver right now.
    I mean I'll download a couple hundred testing files and use the system like that with some occasional problems but btfrs seems a bit too scary for me.
    Huh? Btrfs is a complete change in fs design compared to EXT4. It is COW, has filesystem compression, snapshots, dynamic inode allocation, etc, etc.

    It's not by any means a "slight change" although it is still experimental.

Posting Permissions

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