Page 3 of 5 FirstFirst 12345 LastLast
Results 21 to 30 of 41

Thread: Linux 3.3 Kernel: Btrfs vs. EXT4

  1. #21
    Join Date
    May 2008
    Posts
    43

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by energyman View Post
    with an SF controller who does compression you do not gain any space - but you are wearing the SSD down if you compress the data. Because the controller will not be able to compress it further, defeating one of the wear leveling mechanism.
    So if you write 50GB to the SF SSD without compression, you'll see less than 50GB used on the filesystem?

  2. #22
    Join Date
    Jul 2008
    Posts
    1,726

    Default

    no, you see 50gb used. But internally it is only say 40 gb, saving the flash chips from some dangerous write cycles.

  3. #23
    Join Date
    May 2008
    Posts
    43

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by energyman View Post
    no, you see 50gb used. But internally it is only say 40 gb, saving the flash chips from some dangerous write cycles.
    Exactly. Personally I'd use compression anyway to save space, unless it hurt write performance by >50%. The lifetime of the SSDs is fine anways regardless, so this is the route I'd go

  4. #24
    Join Date
    Jul 2008
    Posts
    1,726

    Default

    emm, no - the write cycles are not 'ok'. The smaller the structure the less write cycles you get. Modern flash chips write cycles are pathetic.

  5. #25
    Join Date
    Mar 2012
    Posts
    2

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by energyman View Post
    http://marc.info/?l=linux-ext4&m=133052231227201&w=2

    oh look, btrfs a lot faster than ext4 in a real world example.
    Well that's borked thread. Follow https://lkml.org/lkml/2012/2/29/210

    As one can notice, ext4 does not keep layout close thus requires more seeks to get the data read. Despite that it makes certain operations slower it also will eat your HDD(s) faster.

    -df

  6. #26
    Join Date
    Mar 2012
    Posts
    2

  7. #27
    Join Date
    May 2008
    Posts
    43

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by energyman View Post
    emm, no - the write cycles are not 'ok'. The smaller the structure the less write cycles you get. Modern flash chips write cycles are pathetic.
    Sure. Do you have a source that shows a rough estimated lifetime of a Sandforce SSD? (normal use)

    If it's 5 years than even halfing that to 2.5 years is definitely OK. As always, it depends on your usage scenario.

    I think Anandtech has something but I can't find it at the moment.

  8. #28

    Default

    http://www.anandtech.com/show/5508/i...to-sandforce/7 - don't fill a complete Sandforce SSD with a compressed file system, or it's performance (and presumably lifetime) will decrease substantially.

  9. #29
    Join Date
    May 2008
    Posts
    43

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by AnonymousCoward View Post
    http://www.anandtech.com/show/5508/i...to-sandforce/7 - don't fill a complete Sandforce SSD with a compressed file system, or it's performance (and presumably lifetime) will decrease substantially.
    Thanks. I can't wait for SSDs to become good and usable.

  10. #30
    Join Date
    Jun 2008
    Posts
    76

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by AnonymousCoward View Post
    http://www.anandtech.com/show/5508/i...to-sandforce/7 - don't fill a complete Sandforce SSD with a compressed file system, or it's performance (and presumably lifetime) will decrease substantially.
    Hm, very interesting drawback of filesystem compression...

Posting Permissions

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