Phoronix with another file system performance test, F2FS and brtfs.
-
Btrfs vs. F2FS Multi-SSD Performance On Linux 4.11
btrfs keeps looking like a poor choice if you care about performance. Really tho, who doesn't care about performance? I wouldn't be so down about it if we didn't have an established pattern. I'd still like to see a new file system live up to the hype.
-
No one should care about performance! Well, almost no one. It's just silly. Especially SMBs should not care. Your systems are SO fast, performance is nearly always near the bottom of the list as to what actually matters. It's just the thing that triggers an emotional "of course I want faster" response and so people latch onto it. When, in reality, it's not very important most of the time.
-
Remember that BtrFS like ZFS is designed for everything except performance. Being fast was never expected or intended to the goals of filesystems of these types. Anyone looking for performance from them is quite lost. They are "fast enough" for sure, but never were they expected to compete with traditional filesystems that do so much less.
-
@scottalanmiller said in Phoronix with another file system performance test, F2FS and brtfs.:
Remember that BtrFS like ZFS is designed for everything except performance. Being fast was never expected or intended to the goals of filesystems of these types. Anyone looking for performance from them is quite lost. They are "fast enough" for sure, but never were they expected to compete with traditional filesystems that do so much less.
While I generally agree, I'd hate to have btrfs or XFS as the backing storage for XenServer, even at small scale single server settings.
For a desktop, yeah, who cares if it's a little bit slower.
-
@travisdh1 said in Phoronix with another file system performance test, F2FS and brtfs.:
@scottalanmiller said in Phoronix with another file system performance test, F2FS and brtfs.:
Remember that BtrFS like ZFS is designed for everything except performance. Being fast was never expected or intended to the goals of filesystems of these types. Anyone looking for performance from them is quite lost. They are "fast enough" for sure, but never were they expected to compete with traditional filesystems that do so much less.
While I generally agree, I'd hate to have btrfs or XFS as the backing storage for XenServer, even at small scale single server settings.
But...
- Why? Why do you feel that a tiny bit of filesystem performance is going to be a big deal in most cases? What is driving you to react in that way to it?
- XFS is super fast, the polar opposite of BtrFS. Why would you hate both? What would make you happy?
-
@scottalanmiller said in Phoronix with another file system performance test, F2FS and brtfs.:
@travisdh1 said in Phoronix with another file system performance test, F2FS and brtfs.:
@scottalanmiller said in Phoronix with another file system performance test, F2FS and brtfs.:
Remember that BtrFS like ZFS is designed for everything except performance. Being fast was never expected or intended to the goals of filesystems of these types. Anyone looking for performance from them is quite lost. They are "fast enough" for sure, but never were they expected to compete with traditional filesystems that do so much less.
While I generally agree, I'd hate to have btrfs or XFS as the backing storage for XenServer, even at small scale single server settings.
But...
- Why? Why do you feel that a tiny bit of filesystem performance is going to be a big deal in most cases? What is driving you to react in that way to it?
- XFS is super fast, the polar opposite of BtrFS. Why would you hate both? What would make you happy?
Doh, meant ZFS, not XFS.
-
@travisdh1 said in Phoronix with another file system performance test, F2FS and brtfs.:
@scottalanmiller said in Phoronix with another file system performance test, F2FS and brtfs.:
@travisdh1 said in Phoronix with another file system performance test, F2FS and brtfs.:
@scottalanmiller said in Phoronix with another file system performance test, F2FS and brtfs.:
Remember that BtrFS like ZFS is designed for everything except performance. Being fast was never expected or intended to the goals of filesystems of these types. Anyone looking for performance from them is quite lost. They are "fast enough" for sure, but never were they expected to compete with traditional filesystems that do so much less.
While I generally agree, I'd hate to have btrfs or XFS as the backing storage for XenServer, even at small scale single server settings.
But...
- Why? Why do you feel that a tiny bit of filesystem performance is going to be a big deal in most cases? What is driving you to react in that way to it?
- XFS is super fast, the polar opposite of BtrFS. Why would you hate both? What would make you happy?
Doh, meant ZFS, not XFS.
Considering how many people clamor to get ZFS or BtrFS for virtualization then rave about the performance, I think that the reaction proves the point - the performance never mattered in the first place
