[ale] Linux 5.0 File-System Benchmarks: Btrfs vs. EXT4 vs. F2FS vs. XFS

[Jim Kinney]

Inability to reduce xfs partition size is it's only problem. I've hit size limit for ext4. The (newly realized for me) issue of df being screwy with btrfs is a showstopper.

I've always mitigated performance issues with more spindles. Now it's nvme for journals and cache.

At an oracle training (sales pitch), they showed specs on a specific configuration with really good numbers. Basically indexes were stored on raid1 nvme and data on spinning rust. Makes complicated joins screaming fast. Postresql can do it too.

On January 9, 2019 8:56:30 PM EST, DJ-Pfulio via Ale <ale at ale.org> wrote:
>F2FS did well in that comparison. Surprising.
>Been using ext4 for almost everything for years.  Sometimes being able
>to reduce a file system is handy.
>
>When I learned that btrfs lied to df and du, I was out.
>
>On 1/9/19 8:41 PM, Raj Wurttemberg via Ale wrote:
>> I saw that you all were talking about the BTRFS file system and
>remembered
>> this article from a few days ago. I build and maintain large SAP HANA
>> database servers (physical and virtual) so my only choice is the XFS
>file
>> system which we have been quite happy with. 
>> 
>> Anyway... Interesting read.... :)
>> 
>> Linux 5.0 File-System Benchmarks: Btrfs vs. EXT4 vs. F2FS vs. XFS
>> 
>>
>https://www.phoronix.com/scan.php?page=article&item=linux-50-filesystems&num
>> =1 
>_______________________________________________
>Ale mailing list
>Ale at ale.org
>https://mail.ale.org/mailman/listinfo/ale
>See JOBS, ANNOUNCE and SCHOOLS lists at
>http://mail.ale.org/mailman/listinfo

-- 
Sent from my Android device with K-9 Mail. All tyopes are thumb related and reflect authenticity.
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <https://mail.ale.org/pipermail/ale/attachments/20190110/17be305b/attachment.html>