On Mon, Oct 5, 2015 at 7:16 AM, Lionel Bouton <lionel-subscript...@bouton.name> wrote: > According to the bad performance -> unstable logic, md would then be the > less stable RAID1 implementation which doesn't make sense to me. >
The argument wasn't that bad performance meant that something was unstable. The argument was that a lack of significant performance optimization meant that the developers considered it unstable and not worth investing time on optimizing. So, the question isn't whether btrfs is or isn't faster than something else. the question is whether it is or isn't faster than it could be if it were properly optimized. That is, how does btrfs perform today against btrfs from 20 years from now, which obviously cannot be benchmarked today. That said, I'm not really convinced that the developers haven't fixed this because they feel that it would need to be redone later after major refactoring. I think it is more likely that there are just very few developers working on btrfs and load-balancing on raid just doesn't rank high on their list of interests or possibly expertise. If any are being paid to work on btrfs then most likely their employers don't care too much about it either. I did find the phoronix results interesting though. The whole driver for "layer-violation" is that with knowledge of the filesystem you can better optimize what you do/don't read and write, and that may be showing here. -- Rich -- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-btrfs" in the body of a message to majord...@vger.kernel.org More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
