LinuxQuestions.org
Help answer threads with 0 replies.
Go Back   LinuxQuestions.org > Forums > Linux Forums > Linux - Desktop
User Name
Password
Linux - Desktop This forum is for the discussion of all Linux Software used in a desktop context.

Notices


Reply
  Search this Thread
Old 02-16-2017, 01:13 PM   #16
masinick
Member
 
Registered: Apr 2002
Location: Clinton Township, MI
Distribution: Debian, antiX, Kubuntu, Xubuntu, and many others
Posts: 605
Blog Entries: 15

Rep: Reputation: 81
Mainstream alternatives - ext4, btrfs


The entire conversation here includes so many variables that it is not very practical to make any solid conclusion that is universally true. What I would say is that if you are using a current generation Linux or Linux-based distribution, by a moderate amount, ext4 is probably the most common file system available. Just five years ago, btrfs was pretty new and not all that common. Today, choosing between ext4 and btrfs is not a big deal: use the one your distribution uses by default.

If you have a very peculiar workload or a specific distribution that only offers a specific filesystem, it's not crazy to use something else. Two decades ago I used ext2 all the time and it worked fine. A decade ago I used predominantly ext3 and in more recent years I've used ext4, but along the way, I'd notice one or two distributions that would feature something other than an ext-based filesystem. I believe that SUSE is a distribution that goes against common convention - years ago I believe they used ReiserFS when most others were using ext2 or ext3. Recent versions of openSUSE have successfully used btrfs.

In addition to filesystems, some distributions incorporate the use of a "logical volume manager" to organize the disk partitions. Support for LVM might be a factor that constrains you to use a specific filesystem.

Lots of other possibilities, and these are by no means the only considerations, but they are mainstream considerations.
 
Old 02-17-2017, 01:20 AM   #17
salasi
Senior Member
 
Registered: Jul 2007
Location: Directly above centre of the earth, UK
Distribution: SuSE, plus some hopping
Posts: 4,070

Rep: Reputation: 896Reputation: 896Reputation: 896Reputation: 896Reputation: 896Reputation: 896Reputation: 896
Quote:
Originally Posted by jefro View Post

There have been some efforts to make a filesystem that targets a ssd but I don't know how the metrics on that stack up today.
Well that's one of the things that is sort-of easy. Nilfs2 and F2FS are intended for SSDs and BTRFS has an 'SSD Mode' (although it doesn't seem to do much in straightforward perf testing; more difficult to say whether it does anything for write amplification).

So something like this (EXT4 / F2FS / Btrfs / XFS On Early Linux 4.10 Kernel...the title is slightly deceptive though as it actually tests briefly several kernel versions; there are earlier tests on different versions if that's what you want) set of tests has a series of results for various filesystems.

More relevant to the OP's system would be something like this testing which is at least performed on a hard disk.

One thing that is at least worth pointing out is that the mount options obviously make a performance difference and as a general rule the more advanced the filesystem the more scope there is for playing with mount options. The phoronix testing is generally performed in the default condition but here is a comparison for BTRFS.

Note that in certain specific cases there can seemingly be a big win but not all of the tested cases will be robust against other problems. Also note that compression of any kind is likely to work better in performance terms when you have 'lots of CPU/slow disk' and less well for 'fast disk/constrained CPU availability'.

@masinick
Quote:
I believe that SUSE is a distribution that goes against common convention - years ago I believe they used ReiserFS when most others were using ext2 or ext3. Recent versions of openSUSE have successfully used btrfs.
For about the past three years openSUSE has recommended BTRFS for the system and XFS for user data (/home). They have the ability to roll back OS updates if necessary. Given some of the comments I see on the 'net about XFS being more delicate than ext4 I don't think I'll be hurrying to try that out but it could all be FUD depending on how the XFS volume was mounted (which is not usually info that you get from people complaining of data loss).
 
  


Reply


Thread Tools Search this Thread
Search this Thread:

Advanced Search

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is Off
HTML code is Off



Similar Threads
Thread Thread Starter Forum Replies Last Post
The fastest operating system? PLANTROON Linux - Newbie 13 08-06-2012 12:37 PM
What is the fastest way to create a file? sovereign_aua Programming 13 01-14-2010 04:27 PM
Fastest file transfert (sync) method? yanik Solaris / OpenSolaris 13 10-01-2007 01:43 PM
fastest file system os2 Linux - General 2 03-25-2005 06:32 PM
Fastest File Transfer Protocol unixvillian Linux - Networking 1 06-09-2004 03:31 PM

LinuxQuestions.org > Forums > Linux Forums > Linux - Desktop

All times are GMT -5. The time now is 08:39 AM.

Main Menu
Advertisement
My LQ
Write for LQ
LinuxQuestions.org is looking for people interested in writing Editorials, Articles, Reviews, and more. If you'd like to contribute content, let us know.
Main Menu
Syndicate
RSS1  Latest Threads
RSS1  LQ News
Twitter: @linuxquestions
Facebook: linuxquestions Google+: linuxquestions
Open Source Consulting | Domain Registration