Linked by Thom Holwerda on Mon 29th Jun 2009 08:40 UTC, submitted by Dacha
"The past few Linux kernel releases have brought a number of new file-systems to the Linux world, such as with EXT4 having been stabilized in the Linux 2.6.28 kernel, Btrfs being merged into Linux 2.6.29, and most recently the NILFS2 file-system premiering with the Linux 2.6.30 kernel. Other file-systems have been introduced too during the past few Linux kernel release cycles, but these three have been the most talked about and are often looked at as being the next-generation Linux file-systems. Being the benchmarking junkies that we are, we have set out to compare the file-system performance of EXT4, Btrfs, and NILFS2 under Ubuntu using the Linux 2.6.30 kernel. We also looked at how these file-systems compared to EXT3 and XFS."
Thread beginning with comment 370729
To view parent comment, click here.
To read all comments associated with this story, please click here.
To view parent comment, click here.
To read all comments associated with this story, please click here.
RE[2]: I wonder what happened with ext4 and sqlite?
by sbergman27 on Mon 29th Jun 2009 20:01
in reply to "RE: I wonder what happened with ext4 and sqlite?"
Member since:2005-07-24
Yeah, that's why I wrote ext3 looked like the overall wiser choice.
I'm a big ext3 fan, and have been for a long time. My new servers are running ext4. But ext3 has probably been the most under-rated filesystem in recent history... except maybe for JFS, which never even seems to get noticed.
Ext3 always does well in benchmarks... and yet has a reputation for being slow. Ext2 has never suffered from that undeserved stigma.
Ext3 has been probably the most rock solid filesystem ever developed and put into general use.
I think Matthew Garrett hit the nail on the head when, during the Great Ext4 Unreliability Debate, he said to Ted T'So:
“The majority of [application developers] I know
felt that ext3 embodied the pony that they'd
always dreamed of as a five year old. Stephen
gave them that pony almost a decade ago and
now you're trying to take it to the glue factory.”
I should say that as it worked out, I'm now an ext4 fan. But all that bluster I heard from Ted about the importance of filesystem performance as balanced against reliability sure hasn't seemed to have done Sqlite performance any good in ext4.
Though politically, he did manage to reduce ext3 reliability somewhat, thus making ext4 look better by comparison.
Edited 2009-06-29 20:07 UTC
RE[3]: I wonder what happened with ext4 and sqlite?
by sakeniwefu on Tue 30th Jun 2009 01:31
in reply to "RE[2]: I wonder what happened with ext4 and sqlite?"
Member since:2008-02-26
Recent Original Stories
Recent Comments
Headlines
Random Comments
Random Stories
Random OS Link
Member since:
2005-10-02
Yeah, that's why I wrote ext3 looked like the overall wiser choice. OTOH there's a difference between a file system and an implementation of said file system (e.g. fs-driver).
That said, the better file system is the one which is fastest and most stable in exactly the areas you need it to be.