On 6/29/20 5:33 AM, Florian Weimer wrote:
* Josef Bacik:
That being said I can make btrfs look really stupid on some workloads.
There's going to be cases where Btrfs isn't awesome. We still use xfs
for all our storage related tiers (think databases). Performance is
always going to be workload dependent, and Btrfs has built in overhead
out the gate because of checksumming and the fact that we generate far
more metadata.
Just to be clear here, the choice of XFS here is purely based on
performance, not on the reliability of the file systems, right?
(So it's not “all the really important data is stored in XFS”.)
Yes that's correct. At our scale everything falls over, including XFS, and as
I've stated elsewhere in this thread we actually see a higher rate of failure
(relative to the install size) with XFS. The databases we use already do all of
the fancy things that btrfs does in the application. If we could get away with
it we'd just use raw disks for those applications. and in fact may do that in
the future. Thanks,
Josef
_______________________________________________
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
