To view parent comment, click here.
To read all comments associated with this story, please click here.
I read the other day a very nice comparison between Ext3, Ext4, XFS and Btrfs. Ext3 outperformed Ext4 by far. Btrfs surprised everybody by even outperforming Ext3 on most tests (though not all tests).
I'll try and find that review and post a link. But it's not the only review I have found with come to similar conclusions. Btrfs is quite usable already and the built-in compression made the filesystem perform even better (with todays fast hardware).
Please do, I'd be very interested to read that.
From my own *unscientific* usages, I've found Ext4 a very pleasant upgrade from Ext3 if just because of the significantly improved fsck times. But I've never really looked into it any more than that. So I'd be interested to know how much of an improvement / step backwards Ext4 really is.
I dont think you should focus on performance. Is your data safe with XFS, ext4, etc? No. Read these PhD thesis and research papers:
XFS is not safe against data corruption:
http://pages.cs.wisc.edu/~vshree/xfs.pdf
And neither is ext3, JFS, ReiserFS, etc:
http://www.zdnet.com/blog/storage/how-microsoft-puts-your-data-at-r...
"I came across the fascinating PhD thesis of Vijayan Prabhakaran, IRON File Systems which analyzes how five commodity journaling file systems - NTFS, ext3, ReiserFS, JFS and XFS - handle storage problems.
In a nutshell he found that the all the file systems have
. . . failure policies that are often inconsistent, sometimes buggy, and generally inadequate in their ability to recover from partial disk failures. "
But ZFS successfully protects your data. Here is an research paper on this:
http://www.zdnet.com/blog/storage/zfs-data-integrity-tested/811
I couldn't see where/how to edit my original post, so replied to it to give the links. The tests was done by Phoronix.
* Btrfs Gains As EXT4 Recedes
http://www.phoronix.com/scan.php?page=article&item=linux_2632_fs&nu...
* Btrfs versus EXT4 comparison using the Linux 2.6.33 kernel:
http://www.phoronix.com/vr.php?view=14524
* And an slightly earlier test also done by Phoronix regarding Ext4:
http://www.phoronix.com/vr.php?view=14516
* And then the latest one done with Ext3, Ext4 and Btrfs on Netbooks (I haven't read this yet):
http://www.phoronix.com/scan.php?page=article&item=ubuntu_netbook_f...
Edited 2010-05-16 21:40 UTC




Member since:
2006-11-13
I read the other day a very nice comparison between Ext3, Ext4, XFS and Btrfs. Ext3 outperformed Ext4 by far. Btrfs surprised everybody by even outperforming Ext3 on most tests (though not all tests).
I'll try and find that review and post a link. But it's not the only review I have found with come to similar conclusions. Btrfs is quite usable already and the built-in compression made the filesystem perform even better (with todays fast hardware).