F2FS File-System Runs Great On SDHC Storage

[phoronix]

Phoronix: F2FS File-System Runs Great On SDHC Storage

Earlier this week I performed some F2FS file-system benchmarks on the Linux 3.8 kernel with an Intel X25 Solid-State Drive (SSD) compared to the EXT4, Btrfs, and other file-systems. Out today are benchmarks of the Flash-Friendly File-System from an SDHC card on Linux.

http://www.phoronix.com/vr.php?view=18494

[sforum]

Phoronix: F2FS File-System Runs Great On SDHC Storage

Earlier this week I performed some F2FS file-system benchmarks on the Linux 3.8 kernel with an Intel X25 Solid-State Drive (SSD) compared to the EXT4, Btrfs, and other file-systems. Out today are benchmarks of the Flash-Friendly File-System from an SDHC card on Linux.

http://www.phoronix.com/vr.php?view=18494

Yes I think a random 4k test (read/write) would be quite a nice to have to. This is where I have experienced serious problems or severe performance degradation on such as USB sticks or SDHC orCF cards in the past when running filesystems like ext4.
Unfortunately phoronix doe not include this in the benchmark of iozone for 8GB!

[mayankleoboy1]

This is excellent engineering. But hardly a surprise, conidering that F2FS has been excplicitly designed for Flash based devices, keeping in mind all the quirks.
And AFAIK, Ext4 and BTRFS are more HDD based in their design. They have to perform well in each type of storage.

[Krysto]

Seems to be about ~50% faster on average in many cases. Not bad! Is this the final version, or do they still have more time to improve it?

[Pallidus]

he didn't test it against exfat or fat32


*facepalm**facepalm*

[stiiixy]

Yeah this is pretty incomprehensive. I can understand EXT4 against others, but the Butter? It's meant for a multitude of mass-storage devices. A low-end replacement entreprisish item and not for singular removable flash discs. FAT and Co, NTFS, EXTies all would have been far more appropriate for removable media benchmark comparison. If time permitted then, yeah sure throw in BTRFS. Does the F2FS even come close to the featurefullness and record keeping/redudancy capabilities of BTRFS in a oranges for oranges 'default' comparison?

[Michael]

he didn't test it against exfat or fat32


*facepalm**facepalm*

There is no mainline exFAT support in the Linux kernel.

Most of the disk benchmarks won't run on FAT32.

[vk512]

Thanks a lot for testing on a SDHC card. Obviously testing exFAT vs F2FS would be great for SDXC, but I think it is not a good thing to test USB thumb drives. Most come with low-quality TLC memory chips (triple level cells) so it is really not recommended to run an OS from it if it's for more than a couple hours of testing now and then.

I intend to run Lubuntu 13.04 from a Sony memory stick so I guess I will get at least the same performance level.

[Pallidus]

mainline gayline


sudo add-apt-repository ppa:relan/exfat


sudo apt-get install exfat-utils fuse-exfat



there you have exfat, and can format sd cards in exfat

you have no qualms about testing nvidia/amd/steams/whatever that is not mainline

the F2FS file system is meant as an ALTERNATIVE to exfat


it's mean to COMPETE with exaft

and yet you my friend test every FS under the sun


except for exfat

[vk512]

mainline gayline
..

Another (constructive) answer would be to use the Phoronix Test Suite and share the results. Suggest, comment is fine but grunting and moaning are certainly things most of us can do without.