2 ms·
> has much better performance for small sync writes I spent some time researching this topic, and in all benchmarks I've seen and my personal tests btrfs is fa
by riku_iki 1y ago
> has much better performance for small sync writes
I spent some time researching this topic, and in all benchmarks I've seen and my personal tests btrfs is faster or much faster: https://www.reddit.com/r/zfs/comments/1i3yjpt/very_poor_performance_vs_btrfs/ https://www.reddit.com/r/zfs/comments/1i3yjpt/very_poor_perf...
- dmm 1y agoThanks for sharing! I just setup a fs benchmark system and I'll run your fio command so we can compare results. I have a question about your fio args though. I think "--ioengine=sync" and "--iodepth=16" are incompatible, in the sense that iodepth will only be 1. "Note that increasing iodepth beyond 1 will not affect synchronous ioengines"[1] Is there a reason you used that ioengine as opposed to, for example, "libaio" with a "--direct=1" flag? [1] https://fio.readthedocs.io/en/latest/fio_doc.html#cmdoption-arg-iodepth https://fio.readthedocs.io/en/latest/fio_doc.html#cmdoption-...
- riku_iki 1y agoIntuition is that majority of software uses standard sync FS api..