Re: [gentoo-user] Fast file system for cache directory with lot's of files

[Jason Weisberger <jbdubbs@gmail.com>]

[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 1560 bytes --]

Sure, but wouldn't compression make write operations slower?  And isn't he
looking for performance?
On Aug 14, 2012 1:14 PM, "Pandu Poluan" <pandu@poluan.info> wrote:

>
> On Aug 14, 2012 11:42 PM, "Helmut Jarausch" <jarausch@igpm.rwth-aachen.de>
> wrote:
> >
> > On 08/14/2012 04:07:39 AM, Adam Carter wrote:
> >>
> >> > I think btrfs probably is meant to provide a lot of the modern
> >> > features like reiser4 or xfs
> >>
> >> Unfortunately btrfs is still generally slower than ext4 for example.
> >> Checkout http://openbenchmarking.org/, eg
> >> http://openbenchmarking.org/s/ext4%20btrfs
> >>
> >> The OS will use any spare RAM for disk caching, so if there's not much
> >> else running on that box, most of your content will be served from
> >> RAM. It may be that whatever fs you choose wont make that much of a
> >> difference anyways.
> >>
> >
> > If one can run a recent kernel (3.5.x) btrfs seems quite stable (It's
> used by some distribution and Oracle for real work)
> > Most benchmark don't use compression since other FS can't use it. But
> that's unfair. With compression, one needs to read
> > much less data (my /usr partition has less than 50% of an ext4
> partition, savings with the root partition are even higher).
> >
> > I'm using the mount options
> compress=lzo,noacl,noatime,autodefrag,space_cache which require a recent
> kernel.
> >
> > I'd give it a try.
> >
> > Helmut.
> >
>
> Are the support tools for btrfs (fsck, defrag, etc.) already complete?
>
> If so, I certainly would like to take it out for a spin...
>
> Rgds,
>
>

[-- Attachment #2: Type: text/html, Size: 2274 bytes --]