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