Ext4: Is it worth the move (for now)?

Dead Code · 2009-02-17 15:23:35

Since arch installer 02.2009 is out, I thinking of doing a fresh install, with the idea of rearranging my partitions. Now that ext4 support is included with the installer, is it worth to try out ext4 at the moment. I was reading the forums for a bit and some people have issues related to the performance of ext4.

If you using ext4, I would be pleased to hear your feedback on ext4

Last edited by Dead Code (2009-02-17 15:24:13)

Mogger · 2009-02-17 15:51:23

There's some feedback from ext4 users in this thread.

1LordAnubis · 2009-02-17 21:14:59

Exactly what I was thinking; I thought ext4 was faster/superior to ext3 in pretty much every way, but according to another thread I just read http://bbs.archlinux.org/viewtopic.php?id=65341
someone said ext4 is slow by default.
ext3 has barriers off, ext4 has them on by default. Never had a problem with ext3, but when using ext4 *without* barriers its much faster than ext3, but he lost his filesystem.

So... the question is... is ext4 faster than ext3 by default? or is this just working with small files, and if it isn't as fast by default and you are required to turn off barriers to get better performance, will you lose your filesystem?

Ranguvar · 2009-02-17 21:18:52

- ext4 without barriers is much faster than ext3 without barriers.
- ext3 is without barriers by default. You can enable them if you want.
- ext4 has had much more work on being speedy with barriers than ext3 with barriers
- ext4 with barriers is faster than ext3 with barriers

I'm not sure yet whether I'll go with or without barriers. I'm also not sure whether ext4 with barriers beats ext3 without. I'll have to test.

iBertus · 2009-02-17 21:23:52

I've heard that several rather large bugs fixes have been pushed into 2.6.29, so you may want to wait until that kernel is relased.

Ranguvar · 2009-02-17 21:29:05

That and e2fsprogs 1.14.4 (mostly for resizing).

cdwillis · 2009-02-17 23:31:49

I'm using one ext4 partition for /. I haven't noticed any real speed increases from ext3, but everything seems solid. I guess I have barriers on, I haven't messed it.

Dead Code · 2009-02-18 00:46:52

I guess I'll wait for a while..

iBertus · 2009-02-18 02:20:53

If it wouldn't be a royal pain in the arse to switch back to JFS, I would consider it. Everything I do seems slower than my previous JFS setup with the current ext4 code, even without barriers. I have no doubt that ext4 will mature into a great and stable filesystem, but I'm not sure that the maturation will occur before btrfs hits in .29.

Ranguvar · 2009-02-18 02:22:21

Btrfs will likely be slower than ext4 (just my guess). It is right now by a lot, though it hasn't been fully optimized yet.

Dead Code · 2009-02-18 03:22:34

When will arch support brtfs? Kernel 2.6.29?

Ranguvar · 2009-02-18 05:10:32

Yes.

Bogart · 2009-02-19 09:18:48

Dead Code wrote:

When will arch support brtfs? Kernel 2.6.29?

If you mean support for it in the kernel, yes, 2.6.29 will have btrfs in it. But notice that ext4 was merged in the kernel over 2 years ago and only now it's been declared stable (just to find out it's not all that stable as soon as more testers have been using it).

Filesystems take a long time to mature. Btrfs is a new and still in heavy development one. It can't even handle a full disk correctly. So don't expect it to be declared stable before 2010.

Arch will support it in the installer only then, not in 2.6.29.

Dead Code · 2009-02-19 10:08:19

yes i understand.. my next move is ext4

andre.ramaciotti · 2009-02-19 13:41:49

iBertus wrote:

If it wouldn't be a royal pain in the arse to switch back to JFS, I would consider it. Everything I do seems slower than my previous JFS setup with the current ext4 code, even without barriers. I have no doubt that ext4 will mature into a great and stable filesystem, but I'm not sure that the maturation will occur before btrfs hits in .29.

A little bit offtopic, but did you use JFS with elevator=deadline or with the default scheduler?

cerbie · 2009-02-19 16:48:06

iBertus wrote:

If it wouldn't be a royal pain in the arse to switch back to JFS, I would consider it. Everything I do seems slower than my previous JFS setup with the current ext4 code, even without barriers. I have no doubt that ext4 will mature into a great and stable filesystem, but I'm not sure that the maturation will occur before btrfs hits in .29.

If you have a drive big enough, can cp -a your whole root, setup the drive again (and multiple mount points if applicable), chroot in, and reinstall the bootloader to MBR. I think that's easiest way to do it. Kind of a pain, but it should work (I've not done it with Arch, but it works for Debian and Slackware), and be less than a reinstall.

Arch Linux

#1 2009-02-17 15:23:35

Ext4: Is it worth the move (for now)?

#2 2009-02-17 15:51:23

Re: Ext4: Is it worth the move (for now)?

#3 2009-02-17 21:14:59

Re: Ext4: Is it worth the move (for now)?

#4 2009-02-17 21:18:52

Re: Ext4: Is it worth the move (for now)?

#5 2009-02-17 21:23:52

Re: Ext4: Is it worth the move (for now)?

#6 2009-02-17 21:29:05

Re: Ext4: Is it worth the move (for now)?

#7 2009-02-17 23:31:49

Re: Ext4: Is it worth the move (for now)?

#8 2009-02-18 00:46:52

Re: Ext4: Is it worth the move (for now)?

#9 2009-02-18 02:20:53

Re: Ext4: Is it worth the move (for now)?

#10 2009-02-18 02:22:21

Re: Ext4: Is it worth the move (for now)?

#11 2009-02-18 03:22:34

Re: Ext4: Is it worth the move (for now)?

#12 2009-02-18 05:10:32

Re: Ext4: Is it worth the move (for now)?

#13 2009-02-19 09:18:48

Re: Ext4: Is it worth the move (for now)?

#14 2009-02-19 10:08:19

Re: Ext4: Is it worth the move (for now)?

#15 2009-02-19 13:41:49

Re: Ext4: Is it worth the move (for now)?

#16 2009-02-19 16:48:06

Re: Ext4: Is it worth the move (for now)?

Board footer