On 2015-09-16 12:45, Martin Tippmann wrote:
ZFS has been around for much longer, it's been mature and feature complete for more than a decade, and has had a long time to improve performance wise. It is important to note though, that on low-end hardware, BTRFS can (and often does in my experience) perform better than ZFS, because ZFS is a serious resource hog (I have yet to see a stable ZFS deployment with less than 16G of RAM, even with all the fancy features turned off).Hi,2015-09-16 17:20 GMT+02:00 Austin S Hemmelgarn <ahferro...@gmail.com>: [...]3. He's testing it for a workload is a known and documented problem for BTRFS, and claiming that that means that it isn't worth considering as a general usage filesystem. Most people don't run RDBMS servers on their systems, and as such, such a workload is not worth considering for most people. His points about the degree of performance jitter are valid however, as are the complaints of apparent CPU intensive stalls in the BTRFS code, and I occasionally see both on my own systems.Are there any conceptual or design properties that make btrfs perform worse in this workload compared to ZFS or F2FS that both do CoW and share some similarity?
As for F2FS, it was designed from the ground up for high performance and efficiency. BTRFS started (from what I understand) as more of an experiment, and as such the original code was not particularly optimized.
That depends on what you mean by resolved. In every test I've done that wasn't a specialized benchmark designed to simulate a particular workload, I've gotten roughly equal performance between XFS and BTRFS (YMMV of course, especially because my usecase is not very typical of most people (primarily building software and running BOINC projects)). I use BTRFS mostly because it makes online reprovisioning much easier (you can't migrate an XFS filesystem to a new block device online, and you also can't shrink one).If not then I still think (from a user perspective) it it still interesting too look where the difference is coming from? There is also a quite old talk with some unfortunate numbers for btrfs from the XFS developer Dave Chinner: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FegjLbCnoBw - is this already resolved? 2012 is 3 years ago.
It's also worth noting that Dave Chinner usually comes forth with numbers extolling the value of XFS when a new filesystem gets proposed. In my experience, for small scale usage, ext* gets better performance than almost anything else, including XFS.
Performance is on the roadmap, but the roadmap is notoriously short-sighted when it comes to time-frame for completion of something. You have to understand also that the focus in BTRFS has also been more on data safety than performance, because that's the intended niche, and the area most people look to ZFS for.From reading the list I understand that btrfs is still very much work in progress and performance is not a top priority at this stage but I don't see why it shouldn't perform at least equally good as ZFS/F2FS on the same workloads. Is looking at performance problems on the development roadmap?
smime.p7s
Description: S/MIME Cryptographic Signature
