3 ms·
I don't think any of that means the benchmarks shouldn't be taken seriously. GP didn't say they expect Bcachefs to perform like EXT4/XFS, they said they expecte
by cpmsmith 1y ago
I don't think any of that means the benchmarks shouldn't be taken seriously. GP didn't say they expect Bcachefs to perform like EXT4/XFS, they said they expected more like Btrfs or ZFS, to which it has more similar features.
On the the configuration stuff, these benchmarks intentionally only ever use the default configuration – they're not interested in the limits of what's possible with the filesystems, just what they do "out of the box", since that's what the overwhelming majority of users will experience.
- barrkel 1y agoAnyone who uses zfs out of the box in a way substitutable with xfs, shouldn't. So I guess they serve a purpose that way. But that argument doesn't need any numbers at all.
- yjftsjthsd-h 1y ago> Anyone who uses zfs out of the box in a way substitutable with xfs, shouldn't. Substitutable how? Like, I'm typing this on a laptop with a single disk with a single zpool, because I want 1. compression, 2. data checksums, 3. to not break (previous experiments with btrfs ended poorly). Obviously I could run xfs, but then I'd miss important features.