EXT3 vs EXT4 vs XFS vs BTRFS filesystem comparison on Fedora 18
Page 9 of 10
Fragmentation
Benchmark profile: - frag test #1: after sysbench sequential write (16x 64 MB files - 2 MB block size) - frag test #2: after sysbench random write (16x 64 MB files - 4 KB block size)
Fragmentation is #1 enemy for mechanical drives. Let see how the contenders fare in this discipline:
With sequentially-written large files, all filesystem except EXT3 perform very well.
On the other hand, with randomly written files all of our heroes fail to impress.
Comments
It would be very interesting for future tests, how ZFS on Linux performs. Especially, after it has become "productive" some weeks ago.
this is surely a good idea ;)
I will investigate this possibility for the next review.
Regards.
You don't need to set the entire filesystem to be non COW, only the directory and files that need it (chattr -C flag).
Hi Ivan,
you are right. Anyway, I benchmarked BTRFS even with disabled CoW and found that, for virtual machines at least, it performs noticeably worse than a traditional filesystem as EXT4.
You can read more here:
http://www.ilsistemista.net/index.php/linux-a-unix/36-btrfs-mount-options-and-virtual-machines-an-in-depth-look.html
The only catch is that both tests are somewhat old now, being performed on Fedora 17 and 18. I should really see if with newer kernels BTRFS performances are better now.
But I have so little time ;)
RSS feed for comments to this post