You are not logged in.
mips1 wrote:I have used XFS for a long time but very recently switched to ext4. I find ext4 faster than XFS.
I read that benchmarks show otherwise. Has ext4 improved a lot in recent times to be faster than XFS?
ext4 seems to have improved over time. The last benchmarks I looked at before a fresh install put ext4 on par with xfs for large files but ext4 wins with small files and some disk i/o operations. After going to ext4 disk performance definitely 'felt' faster to me. I'm a longtime xfs user so I was sceptical before the switch but prefer ext4 now. Try it for yourself.
Offline
Ritwik7 wrote:And yes, I too would like to know how stable btrfs would be on Arch now.
No its not.
I'm using btrfs on my two main machines since a week now and it seems absolutely stable. In fact, btrfs survived a power loss during a storm without any damage.
no place like /home
github
Offline
From many positive posts about btrfs in the forums here I decided to use btrfs with compression on my netbook as / (the harddisk is painfully slow). So far I didn't have any problems but I have had it only a short time.
My layout on the laptop is 500 mb for /boot (ext2), the previous root partition for data with jfs and the new / with btrfs.
The problem is that neither grub nor grub2 can boot from btrfs so you need a supported filesystem on your /boot.
There should be no discussion about wheter to use btrfs because of supposed instability: You should ALWAYS make a backup of important files so when btrfs actually does fail it should be not too bad.
(It's only bad when your data is so big that you don't have a hard disk to back it all up )
฿ 18PRsqbZCrwPUrVnJe1BZvza7bwSDbpxZz
Offline
Btrfs has since last week left the experimental stage for disk format.
See http://lkml.org/lkml/2010/6/12/66
It remains however under heavy development...
For a demonstration and roadmap (presented on Arch) see
http://video.linuxfoundation.org/video/1608
Last edited by JohnieBraaf (2010-07-22 19:47:08)
Offline