Page 2 of 5 FirstFirst 1234 ... LastLast
Results 11 to 20 of 47

Thread: EXT3, EXT4, Btrfs Ubuntu Netbook Benchmarks

  1. #11
    Join Date
    Nov 2009
    Posts
    328

    Default

    "while Ubuntu 10.04 is using Linux 2.6.32"

    For BTRFS it should be nice to test it with its latest code, or at least with 2.6.33-rc8. It's an experimental FS so its important to see its latest improvements. As always phoronix is too ubuntu focus.

    Anyway good article, and WOW!! nice BTRFS perfomance!, a compressed btrfs partition results should be interesting to see too!!

    Regards

  2. #12

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Jimbo View Post
    "while Ubuntu 10.04 is using Linux 2.6.32"

    For BTRFS it should be nice to test it with its latest code, or at least with 2.6.33-rc8. It's an experimental FS so its important to see its latest improvements. As always phoronix is too ubuntu focus.

    Anyway good article, and WOW!! nice BTRFS perfomance!, a compressed btrfs partition results should be interesting to see too!!

    Regards
    I've already shown 2.6.33 Btrfs benchmarks...

    And this request came down from Canonical with interest in how it's running for Ubuntu's kernel.

  3. #13
    Join Date
    Nov 2009
    Posts
    328

    Default

    I am repling to my self!! in other article u have done what i am saying! with compressed partition and with 2.6.33 kernel, so forgive me XD

  4. #14
    Join Date
    Jan 2010
    Location
    Portugal
    Posts
    945

    Default

    I find these filesystem comparisions interesting, yet I think they lose some value by only including a type of storage. I don't even know if there are differences in the way filesystems work with SSDs and HDDs, so what I would like is some clarification on this matter. Maybe there are some filesystems that are more suited for SDDs and others for HDDs?

  5. #15
    Join Date
    Feb 2010
    Posts
    1

    Default

    On page 3 of article:

    "When doubling the write size in IOzone to 8GB, EXT4 and Btrfs continued to operate much faster than EXT4."

    Should Be:

    "When doubling the write size in IOzone to 8GB, EXT4 and Btrfs continued to operate much faster than EXT3."

  6. #16
    Join Date
    Oct 2007
    Location
    Under the bridge
    Posts
    2,149

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by portets43 View Post
    but i do agree with you that canonical has lost the linux spirit, if they ever even had it..

    lately they've just seemed waaayy too money driven.
    That, or they are just trying to find a business model that doesn't include losing money. Kinda like Novell or Red Hat, albeit on a much smaller scale (Canonical is much smaller as a company.)

    Interesting comparison. I wonder what the upgrade path from ext4 to btrfs will look like: backup, format, restore? A quick search doesn't bring up anything.

  7. #17
    Join Date
    May 2007
    Location
    Third Rock from the Sun
    Posts
    6,587

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Michael View Post
    Hmm? If the kernel team, Novell, or any other major company asked for particular tests to be carried out, I would be happy to run them publicly on Phoronix. It's been done before for Red Hat.
    I believe you were asked to rerun a openSUSE test a while back comparing EXT3 performance with barriers on and off.

  8. #18
    Join Date
    Oct 2007
    Posts
    28

    Default

    What about git? Can that get added to the test suite?

  9. #19

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by RussDill View Post
    What about git? Can that get added to the test suite?
    In what regard?

  10. #20
    Join Date
    Oct 2007
    Posts
    28

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Michael View Post
    In what regard?
    Timing things like

    git fast-import
    git add/commit
    git checkout <branch>
    git gc

    With a test repo.

Posting Permissions

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