| 1 |
On Wed, 2012-08-15 at 15:31 +0800, Bill Kenworthy wrote: |
| 2 |
> On Tue, 2012-08-14 at 18:36 +0200, Helmut Jarausch wrote: |
| 3 |
> > On 08/14/2012 04:07:39 AM, Adam Carter wrote: |
| 4 |
> > > > I think btrfs probably is meant to provide a lot of the modern |
| 5 |
> > > > features like reiser4 or xfs |
| 6 |
> > > |
| 7 |
> > > Unfortunately btrfs is still generally slower than ext4 for example. |
| 8 |
> > > Checkout http://openbenchmarking.org/, eg |
| 9 |
> > > http://openbenchmarking.org/s/ext4%20btrfs |
| 10 |
> > > |
| 11 |
> > > The OS will use any spare RAM for disk caching, so if there's not much |
| 12 |
> > > else running on that box, most of your content will be served from |
| 13 |
> > > RAM. It may be that whatever fs you choose wont make that much of a |
| 14 |
> > > difference anyways. |
| 15 |
> > > |
| 16 |
> > |
| 17 |
> > If one can run a recent kernel (3.5.x) btrfs seems quite stable (It's |
| 18 |
> > used by some distribution and Oracle for real work) |
| 19 |
> > Most benchmark don't use compression since other FS can't use it. But |
| 20 |
> > that's unfair. With compression, one needs to read |
| 21 |
> > much less data (my /usr partition has less than 50% of an ext4 |
| 22 |
> > partition, savings with the root partition are even higher). |
| 23 |
> > |
| 24 |
> > I'm using the mount options |
| 25 |
> > compress=lzo,noacl,noatime,autodefrag,space_cache which require a |
| 26 |
> > recent kernel. |
| 27 |
> > |
| 28 |
> > I'd give it a try. |
| 29 |
> > |
| 30 |
> > Helmut. |
| 31 |
> > |
| 32 |
> > |
| 33 |
> |
| 34 |
> Whats the latest on fsck tools for BTRFS? - useful ones are still not |
| 35 |
> available right? Reason I am asking is that is not an easy question to |
| 36 |
> google, and my last attempt to use BTRFS for serious work ended in tears |
| 37 |
> when I couldn't rescue a corrupted file system. |
| 38 |
> |
| 39 |
> BillK |
| 40 |
|
| 41 |
Sorry, replying to myself to clarify ... I sent this as I was reading |
| 42 |
the backlog before the statement that the tools are incomplete. my |
| 43 |
question is more along the lines of do they work? (which was answered as |
| 44 |
"I do not know" in posted links which are probably old) |
| 45 |
|
| 46 |
Another point I just saw is its inability to support swapfiles. Also in |
| 47 |
the past OO would not compile on a btrfs (/tmp/portage) filesystem as it |
| 48 |
did something that basicly killed everything. Other packages were fine. |
| 49 |
Then there was a certain man page I couldnt backup to a btrfs file |
| 50 |
system, ~/.gvfs files that hung the system when I tried to put on btrfs. |
| 51 |
Hopefully they have been fixed. |
| 52 |
|
| 53 |
|
| 54 |
|
| 55 |
BillK |
Archives