Mailinglist Archive: opensuse-factory (776 mails)

< Previous Next >
Re: [opensuse-factory] Re: [opensuse-kernel] BtrFS as default fs?
  • From: Claudio Freire <klaussfreire@xxxxxxxxx>
  • Date: Thu, 12 Sep 2013 12:46:16 -0300
  • Message-id: <>
On Thu, Sep 12, 2013 at 9:10 AM, Jon Nelson <jnelson-suse@xxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
On Wed, Sep 11, 2013 at 12:52 PM, Claudio Freire <klaussfreire@xxxxxxxxx>
On Wed, Sep 11, 2013 at 7:16 AM, Dirk Müller <dirk@xxxxxxxx> 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 for

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.

Why do you say that?
I'm of the impression that ext4 is - highly - recommended over ext3.

This[0] is old, and not really scientific, but I've heard lots of
similar ones (and a bit more scientific) in postgres ML.

I might have to run a newer benchmark though. This[1] one's newer, and
looks a lot better for ext4.

In general, database workloads are special, and the dumber the FS the better.

Until not a lot before that[2], ext4 wasn't even crash-safe.

ext3 has serious fsync issues, but at least is stable enough in its
shortcomings that one can work around them... like separate partitions
for WAL, and stuff like that.

In fact, behavior under fsync has been one of the main reasons XFS is
still the best DB file system option. However, looking at [1], I may
have to re-think those recommendations. Btrfs seems to be way behind

Good thing you prompted me for data.

To unsubscribe, e-mail: opensuse-factory+unsubscribe@xxxxxxxxxxxx
To contact the owner, e-mail: opensuse-factory+owner@xxxxxxxxxxxx

< Previous Next >
Follow Ups