On Sat, 2020-06-27 at 17:00 +0300, Konstantin Kharlamov wrote: > Another reason worth mentioning: BTRFS per se is slow. If you look at > benchmarks > on Phoronix comparing BTRFS with others, BTRFS is rarely even on par with > them. Btw, I should also add here: it may be clear that in ideal situtation BTRFS will always be slower than non-COW file systems. The problem however, it is not even on par with the other open-source COW file system, which is ZFS. Some months ago at my dayjob I was performing benchmarks, and out of curiosity I also compared latest released (as of then, it was 5.6 kernel) BTRFS with latest master of ZFS (which was of a commit b29e31d80 and a kernel 5.4). The setup was a RAID5 on 10 SSDs, and a benchmark was three 20-minutes long runs of vdbench with random 70% reads and random 30% writes. For BTRFS I also used `space_cache=v2` mount option. Results were: FS | run 1, IOPS | run 2, IOPS | run 3, IOPS BTRFS | 65723.9 | 56474.5 | 55090.2 ZFS | 96846.1 | 79797.9 | 76249.4 --------- So, summing up this and my previous mail overall, I do not think that for ordinary desktop BTRFS is currently any good, compared to EXT4 or XFS. _______________________________________________ devel mailing list -- devel@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx To unsubscribe send an email to devel-leave@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx Fedora Code of Conduct: https://docs.fedoraproject.org/en-US/project/code-of-conduct/ List Guidelines: https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Mailing_list_guidelines List Archives: https://lists.fedoraproject.org/archives/list/devel@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
