On 08/12/2010 09:05 PM, Michael Monnerie wrote:
On Donnerstag, 12. August 2010 Khelben Blackstaff wrote:
Here is my post with the results of the benchmark.
Wow, BTRFS rocks.
Be sure to measure your specific use-case before jumping
With our application, for example, Btrfs performed exceptionally
bad - about 4 times(!) as slow as XFS.
Then again, there are some use-cases where even older
file-systems like reiser3 excel (e.g. storing files for
But I'm stunned that XFS is that much slower than ext4 in many tests.
Again, it all depends on the use-case. For us, ext4
performs good (when used with all kinds of performance-enhancing,
safety-reducing mount-options), but not as good as XFS.
To me, as of today, XFS' big strength is performing good to
excellent (while not always better than all other file-systems)
in many use-cases - without worries about instability or immaturity.
One thing, I guess, is for sure: Every file-system will require
continued development to stay competitive.
SSDs, for example, are just beginning to get used appropriately
by modern file-systems. There's plenty of opportunity left to
optimize for them.
And once that is done, there may be yet another storage-technology
available (PRAM? Racetrack?), that benefits from specific strategies.
So the competition will stay open... :-)