On 9/11/13 1:52 PM, Claudio Freire wrote:
On Wed, Sep 11, 2013 at 7:16 AM, Dirk Müller
wrote: Besides Scalability there are other attributes where btrfs exceeds other filesystems.
Regarding the scalability part, lets not compare something from 3 years ago, lets compare the 13.1 kernel, kernel 3.11.0. Ext4 has had pretty nice improvements in 3.11 regarding scalability, see http://lkml.indiana.edu/hypermail/linux/kernel/1307.0/00286.html for details.
http://www.phoronix.com/scan.php?page=article&item=linux_311_filesystems
You might or not like this benchmark, but the headline is pretty clear: "EXT4 wins".
And, they didn't check, but at least for database workloads ext3 beats ext4.
So, if btrfs is slower than ext4 by that much, then for databases it's a no-no (ext4 is already a no-no, so perhaps I should say no-no-no-no-no)
No, it's not currently intended for database workloads. But even then there's some tuning to be done. Big databases run their own checksums and don't care about the data checksumming inside the file system. They also probably want nodatacow enabled on the database files because they really just want space on disk and for the OS to get out of the way otherwise. -Jeff -- Jeff Mahoney SUSE Labs