Arch Linux

ltp

Member

Registered: 2009-03-01

Posts: 2

Btrfs & Intel Atom

Hi.
I want to ask a (possibly) simple question.

What we have:
- Btrfs
- Atom 330 (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_In … al-core.29)
- Enough RAM

What do we want: RAID 1 (at least 1).

Question: if we have running simultaneously Btrfs, some DB, http/ftp/smb/etc servers, is it gonna be enough to use Atom for such an insane idea?

Thanks.

Last edited by ltp (2009-03-01 07:16:40)

Ranguvar

Member

Registered: 2008-08-12

Posts: 2,563

Re: Btrfs & Intel Atom

-) Btrfs is going to be merged in 2.6.29, but even then it'll be far from stable. Remember that ext4 was merged into the kernel years ago - it became stable in 2.6.28, but it's been in there for a while. Especially since Btrfs is so different, I'd expect a stable time of 2010/2011.

-) I have no clue. Why not look up Atom benchmarks and see what CPUs you're familiar with that it's comparable to?

Dieter@be

Forum Fellow

From: Belgium

Registered: 2006-11-05

Posts: 2,001

Website

Re: Btrfs & Intel Atom

the raid setup is just mirroring, that causes no noticable cpu overhead (no parity calculations like raid 5), I also don't think any filesystem would be too cpu intensive.

So your question just comes down to the http/ftp/smb/etc servers. that all depends on the load you will put on it. for home use it will definitely be okay imho, but don't think you'll do 1000 http requests/second or 100 insert/update queries/second on a big database...

---

< Daenyth> and he works prolifically
4 8 15 16 23 42

ltp

Member

Registered: 2009-03-01

Posts: 2

Re: Btrfs & Intel Atom

Ranguvar
>>Why not look up Atom benchmarks and see what CPUs you're familiar with that it's comparable to?
Of course I can, and already did. But that's all is too subjectivity. While in some tasks performance could be comparable, in the other one it could suck hardly.
And that's because I asked question from 1st post, to know some kind of results from real experience of using Btrfs on Atom.

Dieter@be
>>I also don't think any filesystem would be too cpu intensive
Well, remembering ZFS on FreeBSD and Core2Duo with 4 Gb's RAM, it's not quite true...

>>for home use it will definitely be okay imho
Of course, it's only for home use only.

Thanks for replies.

Last edited by ltp (2009-03-01 07:59:33)

dolby

Member

From: 1992

Registered: 2006-08-08

Posts: 1,581

Re: Btrfs & Intel Atom

JFS was the less resource hungry filesystem last i heard. I dont know if EXT4 changes that.

---

There shouldn't be any reason to learn more editor types than emacs or vi -- mg (1)
[You learn that sarcasm does not often work well in international forums.  That is why we avoid it. -- ewaller (arch linux forum moderator)

alelinuxbsd

Member

From: Italy

Registered: 2009-03-01

Posts: 14

Re: Btrfs & Intel Atom

I think isn't good using btrfs on intel atom for different reasons.

1) Probably don't have enough stable for the moment.
2) Good enterprise file system but probably with less performance of ext.
Ok the performance isn't everything (it's true) but with a cpu so slow (very very very slow) will impact on the overall performance of the system.

Yes raid is good, more the 1 gb of ram, but some importance is also on the processor.

Last edited by alelinuxbsd (2009-03-01 13:01:38)

Ranguvar

Member

Registered: 2008-08-12

Posts: 2,563

Re: Btrfs & Intel Atom

Yeah, Btrfs is _slow_. Real slow. Benchmark and see how slow. Might not be one day, but right now it's a pig, even without barriers. As for resource usage, keep in mind that it has a comparable feature set to the resource-hungry ZFS.