Page 1 of 3 123 LastLast
Results 1 to 10 of 33

Thread: Btrfs vs. EXT4 vs. XFS vs. F2FS On Linux 3.10

Hybrid View

  1. #1
    Join Date
    Jan 2007
    Posts
    15,400

    Default Btrfs vs. EXT4 vs. XFS vs. F2FS On Linux 3.10

    Phoronix: Btrfs vs. EXT4 vs. XFS vs. F2FS On Linux 3.10

    Building upon our F2FS file-system benchmarks from earlier in this week is a large comparison of four of the leading Linux file-systems at the moment: Btrfs, EXT4, XFS, and F2FS. With the four Linux kernel file-systems, each was benchmarked on the Linux 3.8, 3.9, and 3.10-rc1 kernels. The results from this large file-system comparison when backed by a solid-state drive are now published on Phoronix.

    http://www.phoronix.com/vr.php?view=18720

  2. #2
    Join Date
    Aug 2012
    Location
    Pennsylvania, United States
    Posts
    1,920

    Default

    The next set of benchmarks better have btrfs told to compress with lzo, otherwise you're not really testing btrfs in a way that would be used real world.

  3. #3
    Join Date
    Dec 2010
    Posts
    45

    Default

    For btrfs, are you turning off COW for database file(s) for the database-driven tests?

  4. #4
    Join Date
    Mar 2012
    Posts
    43

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Ericg View Post
    The next set of benchmarks better have btrfs told to compress with lzo, otherwise you're not really testing btrfs in a way that would be used real world.
    That would break many benchmarks. Notice that test files are often full of zeroes, yielding unrealistic benefits. Real world data isn't anything like that.

  5. #5
    Join Date
    Aug 2012
    Location
    Pennsylvania, United States
    Posts
    1,920

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by rvalles View Post
    That would break many benchmarks. Notice that test files are often full of zeroes, yielding unrealistic benefits. Real world data isn't anything like that.
    True, wasn't thinking about the fact that he just does zero-filled files instead of random-filled

  6. #6
    Join Date
    Oct 2008
    Posts
    3,212

    Default Other OS tests

    It would be interesting to get an idea of what that hardware can do under NTFS or OSX, for comparison. For example, btrfs looks pretty bad compared to ext4, but i wonder if it's competitive with what you'd see on other OS's. In other words, is btrfs really struggling, or is ext4 just really good?

  7. #7
    Join Date
    Sep 2008
    Location
    Vilnius, Lithuania
    Posts
    2,635

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by smitty3268 View Post
    It would be interesting to get an idea of what that hardware can do under NTFS or OSX, for comparison. For example, btrfs looks pretty bad compared to ext4, but i wonder if it's competitive with what you'd see on other OS's. In other words, is btrfs really struggling, or is ext4 just really good?
    Btrfs has different features. But what would be worthwhile is to test NTFS (as a counterpart to EXT4) and ResFS (as a counterpart to Btrfs) on Windows.

  8. #8
    Join Date
    May 2013
    Posts
    42

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Ericg View Post
    True, wasn't thinking about the fact that he just does zero-filled files instead of random-filled
    Off-topic: From a merely theoretical standpoint, is there any benefit in (losslessly) compressing truly random data?

  9. #9
    Join Date
    Oct 2008
    Posts
    3,212

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by IsacDaavid View Post
    Off-topic: From a merely theoretical standpoint, is there any benefit in (losslessly) compressing truly random data?
    If it's "truly random" then there is no pattern, and can not be any way to compress it.

    However, most data on a computer is not truly random. Text files and executable files are generally highly compressible. So is uncompressed video, but if you've already used a lossy compressor like mp3/h264/etc., then it's tough to do much more to it.

    A proper compressing filesystem should be able to detect when the data is compressible and when it should be skipped, and allow you to automatically take advantage of the feature only when it's actually beneficial.

  10. #10
    Join Date
    Oct 2012
    Posts
    297

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Ericg View Post
    True, wasn't thinking about the fact that he just does zero-filled files instead of random-filled
    in case of random filled file it would be better for brtfs WITHOUT compression!

    purely random data cannot be compressed.

Posting Permissions

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