| 1 |
Sure, but wouldn't compression make write operations slower? And isn't he |
| 2 |
looking for performance? |
| 3 |
On Aug 14, 2012 1:14 PM, "Pandu Poluan" <pandu@××××××.info> wrote: |
| 4 |
|
| 5 |
> |
| 6 |
> On Aug 14, 2012 11:42 PM, "Helmut Jarausch" <jarausch@××××××××××××××××.de> |
| 7 |
> wrote: |
| 8 |
> > |
| 9 |
> > On 08/14/2012 04:07:39 AM, Adam Carter wrote: |
| 10 |
> >> |
| 11 |
> >> > I think btrfs probably is meant to provide a lot of the modern |
| 12 |
> >> > features like reiser4 or xfs |
| 13 |
> >> |
| 14 |
> >> Unfortunately btrfs is still generally slower than ext4 for example. |
| 15 |
> >> Checkout http://openbenchmarking.org/, eg |
| 16 |
> >> http://openbenchmarking.org/s/ext4%20btrfs |
| 17 |
> >> |
| 18 |
> >> The OS will use any spare RAM for disk caching, so if there's not much |
| 19 |
> >> else running on that box, most of your content will be served from |
| 20 |
> >> RAM. It may be that whatever fs you choose wont make that much of a |
| 21 |
> >> difference anyways. |
| 22 |
> >> |
| 23 |
> > |
| 24 |
> > If one can run a recent kernel (3.5.x) btrfs seems quite stable (It's |
| 25 |
> used by some distribution and Oracle for real work) |
| 26 |
> > Most benchmark don't use compression since other FS can't use it. But |
| 27 |
> that's unfair. With compression, one needs to read |
| 28 |
> > much less data (my /usr partition has less than 50% of an ext4 |
| 29 |
> partition, savings with the root partition are even higher). |
| 30 |
> > |
| 31 |
> > I'm using the mount options |
| 32 |
> compress=lzo,noacl,noatime,autodefrag,space_cache which require a recent |
| 33 |
> kernel. |
| 34 |
> > |
| 35 |
> > I'd give it a try. |
| 36 |
> > |
| 37 |
> > Helmut. |
| 38 |
> > |
| 39 |
> |
| 40 |
> Are the support tools for btrfs (fsck, defrag, etc.) already complete? |
| 41 |
> |
| 42 |
> If so, I certainly would like to take it out for a spin... |
| 43 |
> |
| 44 |
> Rgds, |
| 45 |
> |
| 46 |
> |
Archives