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."

2 of 102 comments (clear)

  1. What, no ReiserFS? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Funny

    you folks are killing me

  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.