> It doesn't use compression so not relevant to the cited statement? Well the paper compares ext2, ext4, xfs, f2fs, and btrfs in terms of IO amplification and states: "In fact, in all our experiments, btrfs was an outlier, producing the highest read, write, and space amplification." The results listed in Tables 1 and 2 show that btrfs does incur higher amounts of IO, so even with compression it's not at all obvious that this would bring btrfs down to levels comparable to (or lower than) the other file systems. Hence I believe Vitaly is linking this paper to suggest that evidence is needed before we can confidently assert that btrfs + compression is better at preserving nand than using 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
