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

[DJ-Pfulio]

There are pros and cons to upgrading existing utilities to handle ´new´ things.
fdisk was upgraded to handle GPT, but there was a time, a confusing time, where
fdisk didn´t work.

Same for grub.

ip is a step backwards in my mind.  ifconfig should have been upgraded.  Having
ip put out machine readable, but not human readable output is a failure, IMHO.

df and du are extremely important.  Any file system that can provide reasonable
hooks for df and du to give the truth is a failure, again, IMHO.

Change to interfaces for the sake of change is a bad reason.  systemd did this.
 They should have made it backwards compatible.  Heck, if MSFT powershell can
use Unix commands, why can btrfs?





On 1/10/19 9:41 AM, Beddingfield, Allen via Ale wrote:
> The "df" output is annoying, but I'm not sure why it would be a showstopper. It
> is easy enough to still make sense of.
> 
> I think it is just a matter of "df" being so old that it can't account for
> BtrFS.  Just because an old utility has trouble interpreting something written
> many years later, I'm not going to rule out the new thing. (This very argument
> got heated on the SUSE beta list for SLES 15 about dropping ipconfig for the
> same reason - it is too old to interpret data accurately from all modern configs).
> 
> However, BtrFS introduces so much added complication and things that can go
> wrong that I use it very sparingly.  Even though it is the out-of-the-box
> default FS on SLES, I tend to use XFS for simplicity.
> Allen B.
> 
> On 1/10/19 6:47 AM, Jim Kinney via Ale 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