Page 3 of 4 FirstFirst 1234 LastLast
Results 21 to 30 of 31

Thread: which filesystem is faster?

  1. #21
    Join Date
    Oct 2007
    Location
    Mystic Ruin
    Beans
    Hidden!

    Re: which filesystem is faster?

    Quote Originally Posted by pacco View Post
    sorry im not a teen,i just wanted other users opinions on the matter.
    I did research it on google,everyone so far says ext4 is fastest.

    Wow i never thought linux community would be rude enough to acttually imply something like this:
    "It's my experience that people who ask questions like that (pointless questions that imply a lack of research and understanding of ones requirements that is)"
    Nevermind him, he's just being a troll atm. I personally use and love ext4 its pretty fast, can't say how the others fair from first hand experience but I can say for me EXT4 has been fast and stable.
    Diaspora Handle: masternetra@diasp.org

  2. #22
    Join Date
    Aug 2006
    Location
    Florianopolis, Brazil
    Beans
    1,354
    Distro
    Ubuntu Development Release

    Re: which filesystem is faster?

    Quote Originally Posted by blueshiftoverwatch View Post
    Which would be a better file system to keep Virtualbox's virtual hard drives on, XFS or JFS?
    Well XFS is good for large files. However you should be concerned with dataloss. Another thing to be concerned with is how well the source is supported in the kernel, XFS and JFS are both maintained and used by a considerably smaller set of users and developers.

    This is the strength of something like ext3/4. They are deployed by default, they are tested to death and every vendor has signed on to support it. You can count on it. Btrfs also has good vendor buy in, it is generally seen as the best next generation filesystem and as such will be the naturally next generation pick. Lots of people work on these systems, bugs get fixed, attention is paid.

    For the use case you mention I think I would recommend a separate partition in XFS provided you have a UPS or this is a laptop (or if you don't care that it might lose data). If this is a production environment you should consider nothing but ext3 (in a year or so see what has come of ext4 stability wise).

    Another question is that pressing soon is what is underneath the filesystem - we can still assume rotating storage but SSDs are becoming contenders though mostly I suspect as some kind of onboard cache (Intel seems keen on this approach) or a hybrid storage device. These devices and setups will have wildly different performance requirements.
    On strike during the Oneiric cycle due to ungratefulness of Ubuntu.


  3. #23
    Join Date
    Nov 2006
    Location
    Morgantown West Virginia
    Beans
    128
    Distro
    Ubuntu 11.10 Oneiric Ocelot

    Re: which filesystem is faster?

    didnt hurt my precious feelings,sorry to disapoint you.
    Donald Smouse Jr

  4. #24
    Join Date
    Jan 2009
    Beans
    244
    Distro
    Ubuntu 9.10 Karmic Koala

    Re: which filesystem is faster?

    Quote Originally Posted by gnomeuser View Post
    Btrfs also has good vendor buy in, it is generally seen as the best next generation filesystem and as such will be the naturally next generation pick.
    Do you think that Btrfs is going to replace Ext3/4 as default Linux file system for most distros within so many years?
    Quote Originally Posted by gnomeuser View Post
    For the use case you mention I think I would recommend a separate partition in XFS provided you have a UPS or this is a laptop (or if you don't care that it might lose data).
    I don't have a UPS. But I have a 750GB external hard drive. So I can just back the virtual hard drives up on that periodically. And even if I did loose my data it wouldn't be a huge loss. Thanks for the recommendation.

  5. #25
    Join Date
    Aug 2006
    Location
    Florianopolis, Brazil
    Beans
    1,354
    Distro
    Ubuntu Development Release

    Re: which filesystem is faster?

    Quote Originally Posted by blueshiftoverwatch View Post
    Do you think that Btrfs is going to replace Ext3/4 as default Linux file system for most distros within so many years?
    The lead developer Chris Mason states that kernel 2.6.32 (code backported to Fedora 12 so if you want to play with it try that release) will contain btrfs code he is comfortable giving to early adopters. This is a big step for something as critical as a filesystem. As for it becoming the defacto filesystem soon, vendors from Moblin (Linux Foundation / Intel / ARM), Red Hat and Novell have invested time in developing the codebase. It is very well adopted for the next generation. In fact both the upcoming Fedora and the just released openSUSE both support installing on btrfs.

    I predict that btrfs by this time next year will be the default filesystem for all distros. Moblin has already commented that they want to use it for their post 2.1 release. Also a year from now gives the community distros a lot of time to have tech previews and expand user testing, in the coming year we will likely see enterprise products from Canonical (Lucid), Red Hat (RHEL6) and probably also Novell (SLED 12). They would probably like to ship tech preview btrfs in these but it is not yet ready to be default. However the second after these releases there is likely going to be a strong interest in pushing community releases into defaulting. The code at that point will be fairly solid, the risk is low and it's the beginning of a new enterprise product cycle for everyone. By the time 2 years have gone by and when the next major enterprise products come out they will know if it's truly dependable.

    Thus my guess, one year from now you will see all distributions default to btrfs in their releases.

    I know that is seemingly quick for a filesystem but btrfs has a good track record so far and the functionality it brings with it is so appealing that most vendors would love to have it as soon as possible. I believe this to be a completely realistic timeframe.

    I don't have a UPS. But I have a 750GB external hard drive. So I can just back the virtual hard drives up on that periodically. And even if I did loose my data it wouldn't be a huge loss. Thanks for the recommendation.
    If you are running from the external harddrive you shouldn't expect any specific filesystem to really give you a benefit. The cap is likely going to be USB 2.0 transfer speeds - at least that is the case for me.
    On strike during the Oneiric cycle due to ungratefulness of Ubuntu.


  6. #26
    Join Date
    Jan 2009
    Beans
    244
    Distro
    Ubuntu 9.10 Karmic Koala

    Re: which filesystem is faster?

    Quote Originally Posted by gnomeuser View Post
    Thus my guess, one year from now you will see all distributions default to btrfs in their releases.
    If your right, by the time people start adopting Ext4 all the distros are going to be switching to Btrfs.
    Quote Originally Posted by gnomeuser View Post
    If you are running from the external harddrive you shouldn't expect any specific filesystem to really give you a benefit. The cap is likely going to be USB 2.0 transfer speeds - at least that is the case for me.
    I meant that I was running it from a SATA drive but that I have a 750GB external drive that I could use to backup the virtual hard drive files onto.

  7. #27
    Join Date
    Oct 2008
    Beans
    61
    Distro
    Ubuntu 9.04 Jaunty Jackalope

    Re: which filesystem is faster?

    Quote Originally Posted by gnomeuser View Post
    I apologize for hurting your precious feelings. Please the next time consider asking a question that isn't unanswerable.
    Congratulations.
    You've crossed over from being a bit of a douche to being a massively rude douche.

  8. #28
    Join Date
    Aug 2006
    Location
    Florianopolis, Brazil
    Beans
    1,354
    Distro
    Ubuntu Development Release

    Re: which filesystem is faster?

    Quote Originally Posted by blueshiftoverwatch View Post
    If your right, by the time people start adopting Ext4 all the distros are going to be switching to Btrfs.
    Existing products will continue to be supported this is especially true for enterprise products. I don't see a rapid deployment schedule for btrfs as being wasted time on ext4. The companies that bet heavily on enterprise customers need to give them assurances they cannot give them for btrfs now and ext3 is increasingly not an option. Ext4 is though a perfect stepping stone to btrfs, we even have programs to migrate existing ext3/4 partitions to btrfs.

    You even have projects like Moblin which clearly stated that they are not going to even look at ext3 since btrfs is already in a state they are comfortable with for their next release (I assume they mean that the code is good now and any bugs can be fixed during their cycle).

    I don't think a year is going to be to ambitious to be honest. The demand is there, the code is looking good and every major vendor is investing in btrfs now and have done for a while.

    I meant that I was running it from a SATA drive but that I have a 750GB external drive that I could use to backup the virtual hard drive files onto.
    Ah.. in that case I would back up to ext4 with barriers enabled on the external drive, keep the images on a separate XFS partition. I think you will find that to be an acceptable solution.
    On strike during the Oneiric cycle due to ungratefulness of Ubuntu.


  9. #29
    Join Date
    Jan 2009
    Beans
    244
    Distro
    Ubuntu 9.10 Karmic Koala

    Re: which filesystem is faster?

    Quote Originally Posted by gnomeuser View Post
    Ah.. in that case I would back up to ext4 with barriers enabled on the external drive, keep the images on a separate XFS partition. I think you will find that to be an acceptable solution.
    Is there any reason why backing up the virtual hard drive files to a FAT32 partition on my external HD wouldn't be acceptable?

  10. #30
    Join Date
    Aug 2006
    Location
    Florianopolis, Brazil
    Beans
    1,354
    Distro
    Ubuntu Development Release

    Re: which filesystem is faster?

    Quote Originally Posted by blueshiftoverwatch View Post
    Is there any reason why backing up the virtual hard drive files to a FAT32 partition on my external HD wouldn't be acceptable?
    Not really.. I was just picking one stable option for the backup, FAT32 will likely be a good option as well - I don't really have much experience with it from a stability pov.
    On strike during the Oneiric cycle due to ungratefulness of Ubuntu.


Page 3 of 4 FirstFirst 1234 LastLast

Bookmarks

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •