On Aug 14, 2012 11:42 PM, "Helmut Jarausch" <jarau...@igpm.rwth-aachen.de> wrote: > > 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. >
Are the support tools for btrfs (fsck, defrag, etc.) already complete? If so, I certainly would like to take it out for a spin... Rgds,
