Page 2 of 2 FirstFirst 12
Results 11 to 19 of 19

Thread: EXT4 Still Leads Over Btrfs File-System On Linux 3.8

  1. #11
    Join Date
    Oct 2012
    Posts
    257

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by blackmagic2 View Post
    This comparison tells me nothing :-(
    i contradict this statement. this comparision shows what is important for the VERY most users out there when they install linux and want to chose a good filesystem to work. while everything that was mentioned above is correct it is not what most people know and are interested in. they want the faster one with default settings (not while tuning it with unsafe settings).

    if we wouldn't have such a test people would ask which one to chose, which one is faster bla bla. btrfs is not yet at the point for everybodys default use.

    so i would say, this test is exactly what is needed, for the very most people!

  2. #12

    Default

    i am using btrfs 2x 3TB raid 1, which will soon be 3x 3TB.

    also happy to sacrifice some performance for checksumming and redundancy. remember that the default single disk options do duplicate metadata.

    interestingly on the btrfs homepage https://btrfs.wiki.kernel.org/index.php/Main_Page it claims that 3.7 had fsync speedups, and that 3.8 has many small performance improvements. is there some regression in 3.8 that has cancelled out the improvements?

  3. #13
    Join Date
    Sep 2008
    Location
    Vilnius, Lithuania
    Posts
    2,398

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by a user View Post
    i contradict this statement. this comparision shows what is important for the VERY most users out there when they install linux and want to chose a good filesystem to work. while everything that was mentioned above is correct it is not what most people know and are interested in. they want the faster one with default settings (not while tuning it with unsafe settings).
    I'm pretty sure that most of these people would rather prefer a safe file system over a fast one. For most people there is no need for additional HDD speed, not even talking about an SSD that was benchmarked here.

  4. #14
    Join Date
    Jun 2011
    Posts
    809

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by GreatEmerald View Post
    I'm pretty sure that most of these people would rather prefer a safe file system over a fast one. For most people there is no need for additional HDD speed, not even talking about an SSD that was benchmarked here.
    It's never good to assume / make such generalizations. For example, almost anyone using their machine(s) for things like multimedia / proaudio are certainly going to want (even need) the extra speed. ~ On my last 'fresh-install', i had the choice to possibly use btrfs - which i briefly attempted to use, only to find out btrfs didn't have the performance that i required and thus i ended up re-installing with EXT4.

    I think it really depends on one's application / use as to whether or not they will choose any given file-system. there may very well be circumstances where someone would want to (consciously) sacrifice some data integrity for performance gains. (hell, that's even why EXT4 offers a number of options in these kinds of circumstances).

  5. #15
    Join Date
    Sep 2008
    Location
    Vilnius, Lithuania
    Posts
    2,398

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by ninez View Post
    It's never good to assume / make such generalizations. For example, almost anyone using their machine(s) for things like multimedia / proaudio are certainly going to want (even need) the extra speed. ~ On my last 'fresh-install', i had the choice to possibly use btrfs - which i briefly attempted to use, only to find out btrfs didn't have the performance that i required and thus i ended up re-installing with EXT4.

    I think it really depends on one's application / use as to whether or not they will choose any given file-system. there may very well be circumstances where someone would want to (consciously) sacrifice some data integrity for performance gains. (hell, that's even why EXT4 offers a number of options in these kinds of circumstances).
    Sure, but you're replying to the wrong person. I was just pointing out that "a user" was generalising things, and even in the wrong direction. Of course there are circumstances where you might need EXT4, that's why it exists. But saying that the vast majority of users are using SSDs and require faster speed over data integrity is clearly not right.

  6. #16
    Join Date
    Jun 2011
    Posts
    809

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by GreatEmerald View Post
    Sure, but you're replying to the wrong person. I was just pointing out that "a user" was generalising things, and even in the wrong direction. Of course there are circumstances where you might need EXT4, that's why it exists. But saying that the vast majority of users are using SSDs and require faster speed over data integrity is clearly not right.
    No, I was responding to your comment NOT a user's comment.

    it is quite silly to say EXT4 exists for (your) said reasons. Btrfs isn't even a 'production' file-system and is piss-pot slow. (and ask yourself; which is in wider use, and why is that? ~ and no, it's not just because btrfs is newer, it hasn't proved itself to be a viable replacement yet). I didn't get the impression that a user's comment was SSD exclusive (although he can correct me if i am wrong), because HDD tests would also show EXT4 wiping the floor with btrfs too. The fact is btrfs (while very promising) isn't ready for prime-time, so this is not really a case where EXT4 is there just as an option for those who need the performance.

    cheerz

  7. #17
    Join Date
    Sep 2008
    Location
    Vilnius, Lithuania
    Posts
    2,398

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by ninez View Post
    it is quite silly to say EXT4 exists for (your) said reasons. Btrfs isn't even a 'production' file-system and is piss-pot slow. (and ask yourself; which is in wider use, and why is that? ~ and no, it's not just because btrfs is newer, it hasn't proved itself to be a viable replacement yet).
    And where did I say that most people prefer Btrfs? No, I was saying that looking at whether one or the other system is faster without looking at the features is not what should be done. Using one or the other depends on what the person needs, and it's not just speed.

  8. #18
    Join Date
    Jun 2011
    Posts
    809

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by GreatEmerald View Post
    And where did I say that most people prefer Btrfs? No, I was saying that looking at whether one or the other system is faster without looking at the features is not what should be done. Using one or the other depends on what the person needs, and it's not just speed.
    You do realize that i never made any comment about you saying 'most people prefer btrfs', right? ~ So why are you asking me 'where you said that'?? (that makes no sense dude).... and the second part of your comment I agree with and in no way did i say anything to the contrary.

  9. #19
    Join Date
    Mar 2013
    Posts
    4

    Default compression

    As a note, might be nice to mention that btrfs + compression can still be faster, in your benchmarks, viz: http://www.phoronix.com/scan.php?pag...10_btrfs&num=2

Posting Permissions

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