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

[DJ-Pfulio]

In the old days, we were taught to use RAID10 with at least 4 drive
stripes to get 80% of the possible performance improvements.  If you
needed more drives, get the DBA and storage teams to work out a way to
get 16-way RAID10, though it will be a hassle for any future maintenance
and doesn't provide nearly as much added performance as the initial
4-way striping does.  Don't use RAID5 with databases or very large disks
(2TB+).

If you never need to reduce the file systems, only grow it, then XFS is
the only choice besides ZFS.  Very few projects will ever outgrow EXT4
size limits.  You are "special", Jim.  Whenever I've worked large
storage projects, we partitioned the data for both speed and
maintainability reasons.  Having 1 huge file system seems more
convenient, but often it isn't long-term.  The added hassles of storage
management at that scale (and chance of total deletion, cough) often
outweigh the simplistic architecture that non-computer people want.


BTRFS lies both to df and du. The only way to get accurate data is to
use btrfs-specific tools. Many people don't mind that, but many people do.

</soapbox>


On 1/10/19 7:47 AM, Jim Kinney wrote:
> 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