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."

5 of 102 comments (clear)

  1. Another lame filesystem review by brunes69 · · Score: 0, Troll

    NILFS2 and Btrfs are both TRIM file systems optimized for SSD media. Comparing them to other file systems on a SATA drive is borderline stupidity, because you would never use them on a SATA drive. Any more than comparing NILFS2 or Btrfs to eXT3 on a SSD would be.

    It's like comparing the performance of motor oil and sewing machine oil to lubricate an engine or a sewing machine. They're not the same thing just because they are both "oil".

  2. Lots of formats? by jabjoe · · Score: -1, Troll

    Surely an OS only needs a handful of formats, all closed and patent encumbered so no one else can read them? Oh wait, that sucks.....

  3. buttfs? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: -1, Troll

    im more of a pussyfs person thank you.

  4. These all had slow benchmarks by Anonymous Coward · · Score: -1, Troll

    I need a filesystem with killer performance. Any suggestions?

  5. ext4 on top by Anonymous Coward · · Score: -1, Troll

    If the system crashes, any of ext4's files that were modified recently will be truncated to 0 bytes, but I guess that's okay because it's fast!