Re: [gentoo-user] Fast file system for cache directory with lot's of files

[Bill Kenworthy]

On Tue, 2012-08-14 at 18:36 +0200, Helmut Jarausch wrote:
> On 08/14/2012 04:07:39 AM, Adam Carter wrote:
> > > I think btrfs probably is meant to provide a lot of the modern
> > > features like reiser4 or xfs
> >
> > Unfortunately btrfs is still generally slower than ext4 for example.
> > Checkout http://openbenchmarking.org/, eg
> > http://openbenchmarking.org/s/ext4%20btrfs
> >
> > The OS will use any spare RAM for disk caching, so if there's not much
> > else running on that box, most of your content will be served from
> > RAM. It may be that whatever fs you choose wont make that much of a
> > difference anyways.
> >
>
> If one can run a recent kernel (3.5.x) btrfs seems quite stable (It's
> used by some distribution and Oracle for real work)
> Most benchmark don't use compression since other FS can't use it. But
> that's unfair. With compression, one needs to read
> much less data (my /usr partition has less than 50% of an ext4
> partition, savings with the root partition are even higher).
>
> I'm using the mount options
> compress=lzo,noacl,noatime,autodefrag,space_cache which require a
> recent kernel.
>
> I'd give it a try.
>
> Helmut.
>
>

Whats the latest on fsck tools for BTRFS? - useful ones are still not
available right?  Reason I am asking is that is not an easy question to
google, and my last attempt to use BTRFS for serious work ended in tears
when I couldn't rescue a corrupted file system.

BillK