On 08/14/2012 04:07:39 AM, Adam Carter wrote:
> I think btrfs probably is meant to provide a lot of the modern
> features like reiser4 or xfs
Unfortunately btrfs is still generally slower than ext4 for example.
Checkout http://openbenchmarking.org/, eg
http://openbenchmarking.org/s/ext4%20btrfs
The OS will use any spare RAM for disk caching, so if there's not much
else running on that box, most of your content will be served from
RAM. It may be that whatever fs you choose wont make that much of a
difference anyways.
If one can run a recent kernel (3.5.x) btrfs seems quite stable (It's
used by some distribution and Oracle for real work)
Most benchmark don't use compression since other FS can't use it. But
that's unfair. With compression, one needs to read
much less data (my /usr partition has less than 50% of an ext4
partition, savings with the root partition are even higher).
I'm using the mount options
compress=lzo,noacl,noatime,autodefrag,space_cache which require a
recent kernel.
I'd give it a try.
Helmut.
