On Tue, 2012-08-14 at 18:36 +0200, Helmut Jarausch wrote: > On 08/14/2012 04:07:39 AM, Adam Carter wrote: > > > I think btrfs probably is meant to provide a lot of the modern > > > features like reiser4 or xfs > > > > Unfortunately btrfs is still generally slower than ext4 for example. > > Checkout http://openbenchmarking.org/, eg > > http://openbenchmarking.org/s/ext4%20btrfs > > > > The OS will use any spare RAM for disk caching, so if there's not much > > else running on that box, most of your content will be served from > > RAM. It may be that whatever fs you choose wont make that much of a > > difference anyways. > > > > If one can run a recent kernel (3.5.x) btrfs seems quite stable (It's > used by some distribution and Oracle for real work) > Most benchmark don't use compression since other FS can't use it. But > that's unfair. With compression, one needs to read > much less data (my /usr partition has less than 50% of an ext4 > partition, savings with the root partition are even higher). > > I'm using the mount options > compress=lzo,noacl,noatime,autodefrag,space_cache which require a > recent kernel. > > I'd give it a try. > > Helmut. > >
Whats the latest on fsck tools for BTRFS? - useful ones are still not available right? Reason I am asking is that is not an easy question to google, and my last attempt to use BTRFS for serious work ended in tears when I couldn't rescue a corrupted file system. BillK
