BTRFS: The Good, The Bad and The Ugly

[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]

 



Today I'll be switching from BTRFS to Ext4 again because of the troubles I've been having with
the New Linux Filesystem. As BTRFS is going to be the Default in F16 I wanted the developers to
know what kind of troubles I've been experiencing with this FS in F15 so they can take a look
at them in order to have a better F16 release:

The Good:

Since BTRFS arrived into my computer (Everything in the HDD is formated with BTRFS excluding "/boot")
I've seen a performance improvement in the data transfer part from and to the computer (copying files seem to
be faster than before) But that's all about the good things I noticed...

The Bad:

BTRFS has reduced system's overall performance, at this point, sometimes it is OK, sometimes it is
VERY BAD, I've noticed "Performance Peaks" in F15 with BTRFS and the Boot times are not nice: I mean,
they are not the slowest ones, but they're not as good as Before in F14 with Ext4 instead of BTRFS.

The performance Running/Launching apps has been afected too and now the PC freezes sometimes (that never
happened in F14 unless I forced it a lot with 4 VM's to suck the 4GB of RAM I have); And Now it freezes
very often when it wants without a lot of effort.

The Ugly:

Running VM's when having their virtual HDD's stored in a BTRFS partition is DEATH!
They're very slow, sometimes they open, sometimes they not, usually they freeze, You can't
work with them. Same thing about Gnome Shell working over a BTRFS partition: it is really slow,
sometimes it reacts but most of the time is pretty unresponsive.

Reading in the Web, I found that some users think that the BTRFS poor performance is caused by some
special kind of fragmentation it suffers, others think it's because of it's CopyonWrite attributes and some 
others blame other stuff, God Knows! the only thing I know is that BTRFS is not ready for being
used in normal production machines (as I tought) and it needs to be fixed before the release of F16, because it's
performance is really far from good...

Other Stuff I noticed is that with Kernel 2.6.38.8-35 the system seems to work better that with the previous one, 
just a little, but is some kind of improvement.

Here you have all the info I found on the net about BTRFS Performance 
issues noticed by users:

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=689127

http://arosenfeld.wordpress.com/2010/12/27/back-to-ext4-from-btrfs/

http://www.vyatta4people.org/btrfs-is-a-bad-choice-when-running-kvm/

http://lkml.org/lkml/2010/7/13/475

http://blog.patshead.com/2011/03/btrfs---six-months-later.html

I only have a question:

Why Any Kind of VM is Sooo Slow when being stored on a BTRFS
partition? Any Way to Solve this? or at least have a BTRFS performance
improvement?

Thanks! Hope this mail help the Developers improving the new FS.

Have a Nice Day!

--
Manuel Escudero
Linux User #509052
Twitter: @Jmlevick
Blogger: Blog Xenode
PGP/GnuPG: E2F5 12FA E1C3 FA58 CF15  8481 B77B 00CA C1E1 0FA7
Xenode Systems - xenodesystems.com - "Conéctate a Tu Mundo"
-- 
devel mailing list
devel@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/devel

[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
[Index of Archives]     [Fedora Announce]     [Fedora Kernel]     [Fedora Testing]     [Fedora Formulas]     [Fedora PHP Devel]     [Kernel Development]     [Fedora Legacy]     [Fedora Maintainers]     [Fedora Desktop]     [PAM]     [Red Hat Development]     [Gimp]     [Yosemite News]
  Powered by Linux