JFS XFS and ReiserFS are dying

litemotiv · 2009-01-24 10:58:31

Ranguvar wrote:

Hopefully we will get btrfs soon, which has many of the improvements of both Reiser4 and ZFS.

Primary Btrfs support should be included in 2.6.29, you can already get it with the prepatch i think.

According to the main Ext developer Theodore Ts'o, Ext4 was mainly intended as a (stable) stepping stone to Btrfs anyway. Here is a interesting message from Ts'o with more information on the subject (don't know if it was posted here before):

http://thread.gmane.org/gmane.linux.fil … ocus=26492

Ranguvar · 2009-01-24 18:51:45

Nice link, thanks. But from what I can tell right now, btrfs's features are very fleshed-out, but there hasn't been much optimization for speed - that's happened in the last three revisions or so: http://btrfs.wiki.kernel.org/index.php/Changelog

The only benchmarks I can find are of .16 and below, and usually show it getting destroyed by other modern FSen.

Last edited by Ranguvar (2009-01-25 15:27:53)

litemotiv · 2009-01-25 12:55:34

Ranguvar wrote:

Nice link, thanks. But from what I can tell right now, btrfs's features are very fleshed-out, but there hasn't been much optimization for speed - that's happened in the last three revisions or so: http://btrfs.wiki.kernel.org/index.php/Changelog
The only benchmarks I can find are of .16 and below, and usually show trfs getting destroyed by other modern FSen.

You're right yes, until now there have been no real speed optimizations for btrfs, it will be interesting to see what happens in that department when it hits the kernel.

Haiyadragon · 2009-02-03 07:52:10

I use XFS because it has dynamic inode allocation and an online defragmentation utility. It's noticeably slow with small files, that's a drawback. With EXT4 it's still possible to run out of inodes with a lot of small files.

adamlau · 2009-02-11 21:08:40

I do not notice XFS being slow with small files at all. I have my partitions formatted with;

mkfs.xfs -f -l size=64m,lazy-count=1 /dev/sdx

and all of them mounted with:

noatime,logbufs=8

Last edited by adamlau (2009-02-11 21:08:53)

Haiyadragon · 2009-02-13 10:59:57

Thanks for the tip. I already use noatime and logbufs for mounting. I wonder if log size and lazy-count are doing the trick. Unfortunately I can't reformat right now, I will try it the next chance I get.

iBertus · 2009-02-13 12:06:19

I've been using ext4 now for a few weeks and it seems somewhat slower than JFS did on my systems. I'm not planning on switching back anytime soon, however, as I'm using LVM and can finally resize volumes in both directions.

Does anyone know if it's possible to add disks to an MDRAID10 setup with the current tools or if this feature is planned?

dolby · 2009-02-17 20:51:06

A nice article regarding EXT4: http://www.ibm.com/developerworks/linux … tml?ca=drs-
Also some filesystem Guides, most of which at the moment deal with ReiserFS can be found in: http://funtoo.org/

pixxt · 2009-04-20 17:02:14

XFS is not dying at all, it gets updates almost every month.

http://xfs.org/index.php/XFS_Status_Updates

techprophet · 2009-04-21 18:42:58

The name of this thread sounded like flamebait. Like you were gonna say Linux would adopt NTFS 3.6 before the year is out or something.

XFS: http://xfs.org/index.php/XFS_Status_Updates

EDIT: Sorry, missed the previous post

Last edited by techprophet (2009-04-21 18:43:14)

Arch Linux

#51 2009-01-24 10:58:31

Re: JFS XFS and ReiserFS are dying

#52 2009-01-24 18:51:45

Re: JFS XFS and ReiserFS are dying

#53 2009-01-25 12:55:34

Re: JFS XFS and ReiserFS are dying

#54 2009-02-03 07:52:10

Re: JFS XFS and ReiserFS are dying

#55 2009-02-11 21:08:40

Re: JFS XFS and ReiserFS are dying

#56 2009-02-13 10:59:57

Re: JFS XFS and ReiserFS are dying

#57 2009-02-13 12:06:19

Re: JFS XFS and ReiserFS are dying

#58 2009-02-17 20:51:06

Re: JFS XFS and ReiserFS are dying

#59 2009-04-20 17:02:14

Re: JFS XFS and ReiserFS are dying

#60 2009-04-21 18:42:58

Re: JFS XFS and ReiserFS are dying

Board footer