Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

Linux 3.19 File-System Tests Of EXT4, Btrfs, XFS & F2FS

Collapse
X
 
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • Linux 3.19 File-System Tests Of EXT4, Btrfs, XFS & F2FS

    Phoronix: Linux 3.19 File-System Tests Of EXT4, Btrfs, XFS & F2FS

    For those that may soon be upgrading to the recently released Linux 3.19 kernel, here's some file-system tests comparing EXT4, Btrfs, XFS, and F2FS on a solid-state drive compared to Linux 3.18.

    Phoronix, Linux Hardware Reviews, Linux hardware benchmarks, Linux server benchmarks, Linux benchmarking, Desktop Linux, Linux performance, Open Source graphics, Linux How To, Ubuntu benchmarks, Ubuntu hardware, Phoronix Test Suite

  • #2
    Ext4 seems to be better than F2FS on SSD.
    That is a pity F2FS is not the best FS on a SSD, because the "Flash-friendly" is not.

    Comment


    • #3
      Originally posted by Xorg View Post
      Ext4 seems to be better than F2FS on SSD.
      That is a pity F2FS is not the best FS on a SSD, because the "Flash-friendly" is not.
      f2fs is best with raw access to Flash Nand chips, with no controler in the way. Like in embedded systems and Mobile devices.

      Comment


      • #4
        Something is wrong with that btrfs sequential read test. That's no way that it should be four times faster at random reads than sequential... ANYTHING.

        Comment


        • #5
          exFat tests with exFat-NoFuse would be nice.

          Comment


          • #6
            XFS lookin' good!

            XFS performance looks well balanced throughout the tests. I'm a huge fan of SGI's file system, so this is quite promising.

            Comment


            • #7
              F2fs is for "stupid" flash based storage like SD cards. It's not intended for SSDs. It would be fair to use a SD card to test how all the other FSes perform vs f2fs.

              What about JFS? It's not bad all round FS.

              Comment


              • #8
                Originally posted by DusanC View Post
                What about JFS? It's not bad all round FS.
                Although it's a solid file system and has proven reliability, I guess it's not considered "cool and hip" with the Linux crowd for some reason. Honestly, I would think less bug-fix and general development activity would be a great sign since it means JFS is absolutely stable and mature.

                Personally... I'd only consider using JFS anymore if I was installing Linux alongside eComStation, since I could see the utility in having one native FS work across two or more OSes versus using an intermediary partition formatted in plain-Jane FAT32.

                Other than that, XFS or bust for me these days.
                Last edited by Dopefish; 17 February 2015, 12:59 PM.

                Comment

                Working...
                X