Page 1 of 2 12 LastLast
Results 1 to 10 of 16

Thread: Linux 3.7 File-System Benchmarks: EXT4, Btrfs, XFS

  1. #1
    Join Date
    Jan 2007
    Posts
    15,100

    Default Linux 3.7 File-System Benchmarks: EXT4, Btrfs, XFS

    Phoronix: Linux 3.7 File-System Benchmarks: EXT4, Btrfs, XFS

    In this article are benchmarks of the latest Linux 3.7 kernel development code of the EXT4, XFS, and Btrfs file-systems.

    http://www.phoronix.com/vr.php?view=18153

  2. #2
    Join Date
    Jun 2011
    Location
    Barcelona
    Posts
    74

    Default

    Is the kernel getting slower each release? (except the graphics stack)

  3. #3
    Join Date
    Feb 2012
    Posts
    70

    Default

    Thanks for the HDD tests in future.

  4. #4
    Join Date
    Oct 2006
    Location
    Israel
    Posts
    600

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by bachinchi View Post
    Is the kernel getting slower each release? (except the graphics stack)
    Huh?
    I did a fast count and its seems that the number of benchmarks won by 3.7 outweigh the number of benchmarks lost. (7:3 in the case of ext4)
    I'd take btrfs out of the equation until its reaches a stable status (mid-development-code tends to be performance regression happy).

    - Gilboa

  5. #5
    Join Date
    Dec 2011
    Posts
    120

    Default

    Thanks for the benchmarks. It looks like ext4 continues to perform better than btrfs even on SSDs (which in theory should be btrfs' strong point)...
    BTW I'd like to see a comparison between the last kernel releases (3.7 vs 3.6 vs 3.5...)

  6. #6
    Join Date
    Feb 2012
    Posts
    70

    Default

    Is there any news of FTRFS : Fractal Tree FS , by TokuDB ?
    Last i heard was their presentation of FTRFS on some DB convention in june/july. Its supposed to be the thing for next gen DB's.

  7. #7
    Join Date
    Mar 2011
    Posts
    92

    Default

    any ideas as of why XFS would perform so much worse in the Threaded I/O Tester v0.3.3 test comparing to the 3.5 kernel?

  8. #8
    Join Date
    Nov 2012
    Posts
    6

    Default Hard to compare

    I've tried both Ext4 and Btrfs on my laptops Samsung SSD and found that Btrfs with compression and discard works the best for me. Certainly the benchmarks from last year prove the compression with Btrfs vastly improves performance:

    http://www.phoronix.com/scan.php?pag...lzo_2638&num=2

  9. #9
    Join Date
    Dec 2008
    Posts
    150

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Nextweek View Post
    Certainly the benchmarks from last year prove the compression with Btrfs vastly improves performance:
    No, they prove nothing of the sort. All they prove is that if you are writing a stream of zeros to your drive, the performance will be better with compression. With real data that does not compress so easily, the performance will be completely different than the benchmarks.

  10. #10
    Join Date
    Nov 2012
    Posts
    6

    Question Could you provide reference?

    Quote Originally Posted by jwilliams View Post
    No, they prove nothing of the sort. All they prove is that if you are writing a stream of zeros to your drive, the performance will be better with compression. With real data that does not compress so easily, the performance will be completely different than the benchmarks.
    It is considered inappropriate to claim something without a reference, could you link me to where it says that the tests were just streams of zeros?

Posting Permissions

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