On Tue, Aug 14, 2012 at 12:05 PM, Pandu Poluan <pa...@poluan.info> wrote: > > On Aug 14, 2012 11:42 PM, "Helmut Jarausch" <jarau...@igpm.rwth-aachen.de> > 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. >> > > Are the support tools for btrfs (fsck, defrag, etc.) already complete?
Do they exist? Yes (sys-fs/btrfs-progs). Are they complete? Probably not...
