Slashdot Mirror

← Back to Stories (view on slashdot.org)

EXT4, Btrfs, NILFS2 Performance Compared

Posted by timothy on from the where-will-you-put-your-bits-next-year? dept.

An anonymous reader writes "Phoronix has published Linux filesystem benchmarks comparing XFS, EXT3, EXT4, Btrfs and NILFS2 filesystems. This is the first time that the new EXT4 and Btrfs and NILFS2 filesystems have been directly compared when it comes to their disk performance though the results may surprise. For the most part, EXT4 came out on top."

3 of 102 comments (clear)

  1. Btrfs by JohnFluxx · · Score: 4, Informative

    The version of Btrfs that they used was before their performance optimizations - 0.18. But they now have 0.19 which is supposedly a lot faster and will be in the next kernel release. There's about 5 months of development work between them:

    # v0.19 Released (June 2009) For 2.6.31-rc
    # v0.18 Released (Jan 2009) For 2.6.29-rc2

  2. Another lame filesystem comment by greg1104 · · Score: 5, Informative

    Btrfs includes support for TRIM on SSD, but that's a secondary addition. The main purpose of Btrfs is to compete against Sun's ZFS in the area of robust fault tolerance. If you look at the original announcement, you can see SSD support wasn't on the radar at all; that's strictly been an afterthought in the design. Btrfs is absolutely designed to work on SATA drives and to compete head to head against ext3/ext4.

  3. Yet another content-free Phoronix fluff article by Ant+P. · · Score: 4, Informative

    Skip TFA - the conclusion is that these benchmarks are invalid.

    At least they've improved since last time - they no longer benchmark filesystems using a Quake 3 timedemo.