3 ms·
actually btrfs looks pretty good on the phoronix benchmarks (note that higher is better in all those tests - go look at the write tests) on Kent's benchmarks,
by ck2 11y ago
actually btrfs looks pretty good on the phoronix benchmarks (note that higher is better in all those tests - go look at the write tests)
on Kent's benchmarks, something is up with the results in the thousands of MB/s - high end flash is fast but not that fast unless the entire transaction is possibly taking place in RAM cache instead of on the drive - which would explain btrfs having numbers in the hundreds of MB/s instead
- jo909 11y agoHigh end flash is that fast. Btrfs is simply not a good filesystem (yet?).
- vidarh 11y agoEven mid range PCIe flash devices are fast enough to make the Btrfs numbers seem unreasonably slow.
- __david__ 11y agoMy experience with btrfs in the real world was that it was unreasonably slow. At least an order of magnitude slower last time I tested it (which admittedly was a year or 2 ago). I keep hoping they'll introduce some massive speedups but until then it's ext4 or xfs for me.