On Fri, Sep 6, 2013 at 2:07 PM, Michael Schroeder <mls@suse.de> wrote:
On Fri, Sep 06, 2013 at 07:04:35PM +0200, Matthias G. Eckermann wrote:
I am afraid, we have a wording issue here:
When Dave says "Scalability" in that presentations, he means "Performance" (see his slides).
When I say "Scalability" above, and use that word comparing btrfs to the current openSUSE default, I am not talking Performance, but talking about "Scalability" in the sense of filesystem size, dealing with huge amounts of (small) files, ...
Hope this explains the different view.
Not really. "Scalability" in the sense of huge amounts of small files sense means exactly "Performance" for me, as that's where XFS before was dog slow, i.e. it didn't *scale".
Scalability is a heavily abused word. There's both kinds of scalability. Ability to store huge amount of small files. Ability to store small amount of huge files, or huge filesystems overall (PB-size). Performance under those constraints, both in terms of speed, access times, and also in terms of space efficiency. There's also ability and performance when recovering from failure scenarios, which is important on a server. So... the area of scalability is huge, no pun intended. How does BtrFS compare against ext234/XFS? Hard to know on an evolving implementation. Today's benchmarks will be outdated tomorrow. And no single benchmark can cover it all. I'd suggest people use 13.1 to do those benchmarks, but I think I already did. -- To unsubscribe, e-mail: opensuse-factory+unsubscribe@opensuse.org To contact the owner, e-mail: opensuse-factory+owner@opensuse.org