Page 2 of 4 FirstFirst 1234 LastLast
Results 11 to 20 of 39

Thread: Where The Btrfs Performance Is At Today

  1. #11

    Default nodatacow and compress are mutually exclusive

    https://btrfs.wiki.kernel.org/index.php/Gotchas:

    mount -o nodatacow also disables compression

  2. #12
    Join Date
    Oct 2009
    Location
    West Jordan, Utah, USA
    Posts
    55

    Default

    Where The Btrfs Performance Is At Today
    Aaargh! The grammar!

    Like your Mom said:
    Where the performance of BRTFS is today.

    [lets see what mistakes I made in my grammar rant]

  3. #13
    Join Date
    Jan 2009
    Posts
    80

    Wink

    Quote Originally Posted by d4ddi0 View Post
    Aaargh! The grammar!

    Like your Mom said:
    Where the performance of BRTFS is today.

    [lets see what mistakes I made in my grammar rant]
    I see a few

    like => as (using like here is colloquial)
    your Mom => your mom (family members are capitalized in different circumstances)
    BRTFS => Btrfs (not grammar, but...)
    lets => let's


  4. #14

    Default

    Hi

    It would be nice to compare brtfs performance on battery backed laptop with intel sss against this ext4 mout options:

    noatime,barrier=0,data=writeback,nobh,commit=100,n ouser_xattr

  5. #15
    Join Date
    Nov 2008
    Posts
    418

    Default

    I would much rather focus on data integrity. Is your data safe with BTRFS? ReiserFS, JFS, XFS, ext3, etc is not.
    http://www.zdnet.com/blog/storage/ho...ta-at-risk/169

    But, researchers shows that ZFS is safe in another research paper.

  6. #16
    Join Date
    May 2008
    Posts
    45

    Default

    voyager_biel Ext4 tuned for performance vs .. how do you tune btrfs... Ah hell who needs it anyway when I have ext4 tuned for performance :P

  7. #17

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by alec View Post
    voyager_biel Ext4 tuned for performance vs .. how do you tune btrfs... Ah hell who needs it anyway when I have ext4 tuned for performance :P
    I think brtfs is not yet so common like ext3/4 xfs... got troubles when tried to make /root on brtfs with grub boot manager... should work with grub2 but I haven't try this yet..
    160 MB/s on Intel X-25 SSD with tuned ext4 tested with dd on my laptop is fast enought

  8. #18

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by kebabbert View Post
    I would much rather focus on data integrity. Is your data safe with BTRFS? ReiserFS, JFS, XFS, ext3, etc is not.
    http://www.zdnet.com/blog/storage/ho...ta-at-risk/169

    But, researchers shows that ZFS is safe in another research paper.
    .. guest you mean data integrity in case of power off. On Laptops in normal case you have battery and you might prefer speed :-).
    Of course on a server with data integrity is more important.

  9. #19
    Join Date
    Jun 2010
    Posts
    3

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by voyager_biel View Post
    I think brtfs is not yet so common like ext3/4 xfs... got troubles when tried to make /root on brtfs with grub boot manager... should work with grub2 but I haven't try this yet..
    160 MB/s on Intel X-25 SSD with tuned ext4 tested with dd on my laptop is fast enought
    "Not so common" is an understatement for a filesystem which is not available in most of the major linux distribution installers. Especially since the filesystem is still marked expiremental and the most current toolchains is not readily available through the normal channels.

    Grub1 support is quite unlikely for official development has stopped before btrfs implementation even began and it's practically maintained by everybody and thus nobody. So a different bootmanager is probably called for, yes :-)

    But performance is probably the last reason for switching to btrfs imho, though that still doesn't mean it may suck. The other features that a filesystem like btrfs or zfs brings make them very interesting for you general allround filesystem needs. And technologies like SSD will probably help ease over some of the perfomance loss that may come with some of their features.
    But if raw performance matters more than the presence of the features of these next-generation filesytems than than those usecases will possibly will (in the short run at least, possibly for ever) call for another breed of filesystem.

    So in general the choice will remain "features" vs "performance", but getting those close together will surely help in winning over the masses :-)

  10. #20
    Join Date
    Dec 2008
    Location
    Creve Coeur, Missouri
    Posts
    404

    Default

    Can we please get a filesystem benchmark using a mechanical drive? Everything here is tested using SSDs which is extremely flawed.

Posting Permissions

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