Page 1 of 2 12 LastLast
Results 1 to 10 of 11

Thread: Linux 2.6.38 EXT4, Btrfs File-System Benchmarks

  1. #1
    Join Date
    Jan 2007
    Posts
    14,780

    Default Linux 2.6.38 EXT4, Btrfs File-System Benchmarks

    Phoronix: Linux 2.6.38 EXT4, Btrfs File-System Benchmarks

    Along with finally delivering Intel Gallium3D driver benchmarks comparing this unofficial, proof-of-concept i915/945 Gallium3D driver to Intel's official classic Mesa driver, there's also our benchmarks of the EXT4 and Btrfs file-systems from the Linux 2.6.38 kernel. These exclusive tests are coming this weekend as part of OpenBenchmarking.org being publicly available for the first day...

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

  2. #2
    Join Date
    Sep 2009
    Posts
    20

    Default

    I'd really appreciate it if you could use old-fashioned mechanical disks for benchmarking at least half of the time. Considerably more people have them than SSDs, and the performance profiles are vastly different -- results measured with one have almost no relevance to the other. Thanks.

  3. #3
    Join Date
    Oct 2008
    Posts
    14

    Default reiser4?

    As usual, reiser4 is missing.

    Saddens me.

  4. #4
    Join Date
    May 2010
    Posts
    187

    Default

    didnt past benchmarks show huge improvments in btfs performonce when compression was swched on?

  5. #5
    Join Date
    Sep 2006
    Posts
    714

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by ayumu View Post
    As usual, reiser4 is missing.

    Saddens me.
    Reiser4 is DOA.

  6. #6
    Join Date
    Oct 2008
    Posts
    14

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by drag View Post
    Reiser4 is DOA.
    • Its current website is: https://reiser4.wiki.kernel.org/index.php/Main_Page
    • It's been ready for years.
    • It's fast: https://reiser4.wiki.kernel.org/index.php/Benchmarks
    • I've used it for years and it gives me awesome performance.
    • It's got legendary reliability: I've never lost a byte to it. I was even able to recover a lot of data from a ddrescued HD which failed pretty heavily on the hardware side of things, with only a few portions of the disk being readable.
    • It's on -mm, pending only on porting it to some non-reiser4-related-but-useful Linux vfs improvements which afaik aren't finished yet.

    How is it DOA? Care to explain?

  7. #7
    Join Date
    Sep 2006
    Posts
    714

    Default

    It's got legendary reliability: I've never lost a byte to it. I was even able to recover a lot of data from a ddrescued HD which failed pretty heavily on the hardware side of things, with only a few portions of the disk being readable.
    I've never lost a byte to Linux's vfat either and it's extremely fast. Does that mean it's as good as Reiserfs?

    It's on -mm, pending only on porting it to some non-reiser4-related-but-useful Linux vfs improvements which afaik aren't finished yet.
    How is it DOA? Care to explain?
    Because it's been under development since 2004 and is still in -mm tree, while a much sophisticated file system exists in the mainline kernel with far more development resources and organizations backing it.

  8. #8
    Join Date
    Oct 2008
    Posts
    14

    Default

    I'm not aware of any such filesystem.

    Oh. I hope you don't mean ext4 or btrfs. You can't be serious.

    Quote Originally Posted by drag View Post
    I've never lost a byte to Linux's vfat either and it's extremely fast. Does that mean it's as good as Reiserfs?



    Because it's been under development since 2004 and is still in -mm tree, while a much sophisticated file system exists in the mainline kernel with far more development resources and organizations backing it.

  9. #9
    Join Date
    Jun 2010
    Posts
    71

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by drag View Post
    I've never lost a byte to Linux's vfat either and it's extremely fast. Does that mean it's as good as Reiserfs?
    CS101 - p->q doesn't mean q->p....:-D

    At least know basic computer science when you talk about computers.

  10. #10
    Join Date
    Jan 2008
    Posts
    772

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by devsk View Post
    CS101 - p->q doesn't mean q->p....:-D

    At least know basic computer science when you talk about computers.
    It doesn't matter which way you read it; neither one usefully substantiates the reliability of a filesystem.

Tags for this Thread

Posting Permissions

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