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