| 1 |
On Tue, Aug 14, 2012 at 12:05 PM, Pandu Poluan <pandu@××××××.info> wrote: |
| 2 |
> |
| 3 |
> On Aug 14, 2012 11:42 PM, "Helmut Jarausch" <jarausch@××××××××××××××××.de> |
| 4 |
> wrote: |
| 5 |
>> |
| 6 |
>> On 08/14/2012 04:07:39 AM, Adam Carter wrote: |
| 7 |
>>> |
| 8 |
>>> > I think btrfs probably is meant to provide a lot of the modern |
| 9 |
>>> > features like reiser4 or xfs |
| 10 |
>>> |
| 11 |
>>> Unfortunately btrfs is still generally slower than ext4 for example. |
| 12 |
>>> Checkout http://openbenchmarking.org/, eg |
| 13 |
>>> http://openbenchmarking.org/s/ext4%20btrfs |
| 14 |
>>> |
| 15 |
>>> The OS will use any spare RAM for disk caching, so if there's not much |
| 16 |
>>> else running on that box, most of your content will be served from |
| 17 |
>>> RAM. It may be that whatever fs you choose wont make that much of a |
| 18 |
>>> difference anyways. |
| 19 |
>>> |
| 20 |
>> |
| 21 |
>> If one can run a recent kernel (3.5.x) btrfs seems quite stable (It's used |
| 22 |
>> by some distribution and Oracle for real work) |
| 23 |
>> Most benchmark don't use compression since other FS can't use it. But |
| 24 |
>> that's unfair. With compression, one needs to read |
| 25 |
>> much less data (my /usr partition has less than 50% of an ext4 partition, |
| 26 |
>> savings with the root partition are even higher). |
| 27 |
>> |
| 28 |
>> I'm using the mount options |
| 29 |
>> compress=lzo,noacl,noatime,autodefrag,space_cache which require a recent |
| 30 |
>> kernel. |
| 31 |
>> |
| 32 |
>> I'd give it a try. |
| 33 |
>> |
| 34 |
>> Helmut. |
| 35 |
>> |
| 36 |
> |
| 37 |
> Are the support tools for btrfs (fsck, defrag, etc.) already complete? |
| 38 |
|
| 39 |
Do they exist? Yes (sys-fs/btrfs-progs). Are they complete? Probably not... |
Archives