3 ms·
Not the same, but there was an article about file system fuzzing recently: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=11469535 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=11
by ymse 10y ago
Not the same, but there was an article about file system fuzzing recently: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=11469535 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=11469535
The presentation is focused on how the fuzzing technique works rather than individual file system performance, but the "time to first bug" is quite telling. Copied here:
ext4 (2h)
XFS (1h45)
GFS2 (8m)
NTFS (4m)
NILFS2 (1m)
HFS (30s)
HFS+ (25s)
ReiserFS (25s)
OCFS2 (15s)
F2FS (10s)
BTRFS (5s)
I've had miscellaneous failures with the bottom three, but XFS and ext4 have been rock solid. Unfortunately ZFS and CephFS were not included.
Would love to see a Jepsen-style analysis of the various file systems too.
- ryao 10y agoThat sort of analysis is testing something on most of those that happen to be two different things on btrfs and ZFS. Specifically, corruption that passes checksums and corruption that does not pass checksums. btrfs' result was obtained by modifying it to disable checksums. How btrfs or ZFS do without the benefit of checksums should only matter for people exchanging disk images. In that case, it would be better to have a userland driver regardless of the filesystem. NetBSD is able to run its filesystem drivers in userspace for this reason.