Page 2 of 4 FirstFirst 1234 LastLast
Results 11 to 20 of 33

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

  1. #11
    Join Date
    Sep 2012
    Posts
    279

    Default ext4 forever

    ext4 forever! Seriously, do we really need so many filesystems ? Benchmark after benchmark, I fail to see any advantage of all those filesystems compared to ext4.
    Last edited by wargames; 05-18-2013 at 07:47 AM.

  2. #12
    Join Date
    Nov 2012
    Location
    France
    Posts
    541

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by kiwi_kid_aka_bod View Post
    For long term storage these people will still be using one of the "slow" filesystems that actually protect their data.
    It's not like ext4 isn't stable at all. The only upside of btrfs about stability is snapshots; it is usually less stable than ext4.

    Quote Originally Posted by kiwi_kid_aka_bod View Post
    Everyone else should pick the filesystem with the best data integrity and resiliance. You will likely never notice loss of "speed" what with continuous improvements in hardware, caching and prefetch of data.
    Everyone else should encrypt their multiplayer game packets in AES, too, because you don't want other players to know your location on the map, but we can afford our ping times going from 50 ms to 150 ms. Amirite?

    Ontopic : it's quite funny, but even on a SSD, ext4 tends to be better than F2FS. I'm using it on a SSD and it works fine.
    Last edited by Calinou; 05-18-2013 at 08:16 AM.

  3. #13
    Join Date
    May 2013
    Posts
    16

    Default

    what about HUMMER, reFS and tux3?

    I think if you are very bored you should try to make a grand filesystem speed comparison.

  4. #14
    Join Date
    Feb 2012
    Posts
    240

    Default Still don't get it...

    I still fail to get the point of these apples-vs-oranges benchmarks...

  5. #15
    Join Date
    Aug 2012
    Location
    Pennsylvania, United States
    Posts
    1,860

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by wargames View Post
    ext4 forever! Seriously, do we really need so many filesystems ? Benchmark after benchmark, I fail to see any advantage of all those filesystems compared to ext4.
    Ext4's architecture and design is 20years old, its boilerplate code atop ext1. Thats about as much of a "hackjob" as you can get. So tell me.. do you like the thought of your entire filesystem being a hack job?

    Besides, every filesystem has its own place and own goal. F2F2 is designed or flash media like phones and tablets. Btrfs is a pretty good general filesystem, especially if have limited space (compression) or multiple disks (built in volume management), it also has functions specifically built in for ssd's which is very relevent in the future, something that ext4 doesn't have.

    XFS, JFS, Reiser, those..I honestly couldn't tell you what they are good for. From what I hear, XFS is very prone to complete failures and even one dirty shutdown can hose the entire system. JFS was an IBM filesystem from forever ago, Reiser was a proof-of-concept filesystem who's reputation got trashed after its head developer (and the person it was named after) murdered his wife.

    What I am looking forward to though is Tux3, It will be very interesting to see the results of Tux3 vs Btrfs in the next few years.

    --A happy btrfs user--

  6. #16
    Join Date
    May 2007
    Location
    Third Rock from the Sun
    Posts
    6,582

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Ericg View Post
    From what I hear, XFS is very prone to complete failures and even one dirty shutdown can hose the entire system. -
    A possibility, yes, prone, I wouldn't says so. In 15 years I have yet to actually come across any corruption or failures using XFS and trust me, there have been quite a few dirty shutdowns. I've actually had more issues with data integrity with EXT 3 then with XFS.

  7. #17
    Join Date
    Sep 2009
    Posts
    114

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Ericg View Post
    Ext4's architecture and design is 20years old, its boilerplate code atop ext1. Thats about as much of a "hackjob" as you can get. So tell me.. do you like the thought of your entire filesystem being a hack job?

    Besides, every filesystem has its own place and own goal. F2F2 is designed or flash media like phones and tablets. Btrfs is a pretty good general filesystem, especially if have limited space (compression) or multiple disks (built in volume management), it also has functions specifically built in for ssd's which is very relevent in the future, something that ext4 doesn't have.

    XFS, JFS, Reiser, those..I honestly couldn't tell you what they are good for. From what I hear, XFS is very prone to complete failures and even one dirty shutdown can hose the entire system. JFS was an IBM filesystem from forever ago, Reiser was a proof-of-concept filesystem who's reputation got trashed after its head developer (and the person it was named after) murdered his wife.

    What I am looking forward to though is Tux3, It will be very interesting to see the results of Tux3 vs Btrfs in the next few years.

    --A happy btrfs user--
    I'm really happy with btrfs also. I know SSD's are all the rage these days but I also have older hard disks for storage and BTRFS w/LZO makes a huge difference on rotational disks. I can't tell a big difference with LZO on my SSD but its great on my other disks. BTRFS's native snapshot ability sounds great too but I've not used it yet.

  8. #18
    Join Date
    Jan 2008
    Posts
    134

    Default BTRFS is slow as ****

    So let me see... BTRFS is slower than EXT4 pretty much everywhere, sometimes MUCH slower. All the purported features of BTRFS that are supposed to make BTRFS better are pie-in-the-sky as far as I can tell. Has anyone actually used the BTRFS snapshot thing on their Linux Desktop? Is there even a GUI for it, something that can come close to Apple's Time Machine? From a Linux Desktop user's perspective, BTRFS is worthless right now, and development resources going into it are a waste.

    As for compression, I'm sorry, but I don't want to waste CPU and get latency because the underlying filesystem sucks at arranging data on the hard disk.

  9. #19
    Join Date
    Oct 2008
    Posts
    3,036

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by stan View Post
    So let me see... BTRFS is slower than EXT4 pretty much everywhere, sometimes MUCH slower.
    I don't know, it looked pretty competitive in most tests. There were just some where it was way slower.

    All the purported features of BTRFS that are supposed to make BTRFS better are pie-in-the-sky as far as I can tell. Has anyone actually used the BTRFS snapshot thing on their Linux Desktop? Is there even a GUI for it, something that can come close to Apple's Time Machine?
    Yes, it works well. No, there's no fancy GUI, but the underlying tech works fine.

    As for compression, I'm sorry, but I don't want to waste CPU and get latency because the underlying filesystem sucks at arranging data on the hard disk.
    Compression results in LESS latency, because the CPU can decompress things faster than IO can read data from a disk.

  10. #20
    Join Date
    May 2013
    Posts
    28

    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?

Posting Permissions

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