On Fri, 2011-09-16 at 05:16 +0700, Fajar A. Nugraha wrote:
On Fri, Sep 16, 2011 at 2:37 AM, Felix Blanke felixbla...@gmail.com wrote:
I'm using btrfs since one year now and it's quite fast. I don't feel any
differences to other filesystems. Never tried a benchmark but for my daily
work it's
On Fri, Sep 16, 2011 at 1:21 PM, Maciej Marcin Piechotka
uzytkown...@gmail.com wrote:
On Fri, 2011-09-16 at 05:16 +0700, Fajar A. Nugraha wrote:
On Fri, Sep 16, 2011 at 2:37 AM, Felix Blanke felixbla...@gmail.com wrote:
I'm using btrfs since one year now and it's quite fast. I don't feel any
On Fri, 2011-09-16 at 13:42 +0700, Fajar A. Nugraha wrote:
On Fri, Sep 16, 2011 at 1:21 PM, Maciej Marcin Piechotka
uzytkown...@gmail.com wrote:
On Fri, 2011-09-16 at 05:16 +0700, Fajar A. Nugraha wrote:
On Fri, Sep 16, 2011 at 2:37 AM, Felix Blanke felixbla...@gmail.com
wrote:
I'm
Le Mercredi 7 Septembre 2011 00:11:25 vous avez écrit :
Reading your post, at this point I'd actually recommend you stick with
ext4.
I actually shifted back from BTRFS to ext4 and fell like having offered myself
a brand new computer, about 20 times faster, me happy ;-)
Both btrfs and zfs
I'm using btrfs since one year now and it's quite fast. I don't feel any
differences to other filesystems. Never tried a benchmark but for my
daily work it's nice. I also never had any issues with the memory. Imho
nowadays memory isn't a problem at all in desktop computers. I bought
8gb of
On 09/05/2011 06:29 PM, Hugo Mills wrote:
On Mon, Sep 05, 2011 at 12:25:21PM -0400, Christoph Hellwig wrote:
On Mon, Sep 05, 2011 at 06:23:23PM +0200, Tomasz Chmielewski wrote:
That's because dpkg is known for using (f)sync very heavily. btrfs
honours the sync request in all cases, so it's
On Monday 5 September 2011 22:25:23 Sergei Trofimovich wrote:
I've seen similar problem on Ubuntu-11 + Aspire One (8GB of slow SSD).
More specifically half of ubuntu install went very fast and when
disk was ~50% free things suddenly gone slow.
I'm just about to give up and definitely quit
On Tue, Sep 6, 2011 at 10:30 PM, Swâmi Petaramesh sw...@petaramesh.org wrote:
On Monday 5 September 2011 22:25:23 Sergei Trofimovich wrote:
I've seen similar problem on Ubuntu-11 + Aspire One (8GB of slow SSD).
More specifically half of ubuntu install went very fast and when
disk was ~50% free
Hi list,
I don't trust theoretical benchmarks that much and prefer real-life
benchs on the occasion, so here's mine:
Given 4 laptops, the most powerful of which was running BTRFS and the
others ext3 or ext4, all machines running Ubuntu 11.04 Natty 32-bit with
a stock Ubuntu 2.6.38-11
On Mon, Sep 05, 2011 at 03:51:17PM +0200, Swâmi Petaramesh wrote:
Hi list,
I don't trust theoretical benchmarks that much and prefer real-life
benchs on the occasion, so here's mine:
Given 4 laptops, the most powerful of which was running BTRFS and
the others ext3 or ext4, all machines
On Mon, 5 Sep 2011 15:00:23 +0100
Hugo Mills h...@carfax.org.uk wrote:
BTRFS machine took 20 HOURS so far, still counting (ETA 15 minutes left).
Wow. Impressive.
That's because dpkg is known for using (f)sync very heavily. btrfs
honours the sync request in all cases
I don't
On 05/09/11 14:51, � wrote:
Given 4 laptops, the most powerful of which was running BTRFS and the others
ext3 or ext4, all machines running Ubuntu 11.04 Natty 32-bit with a stock
Ubuntu 2.6.38-11 kernel, all machines were given the following FS-intensive
task :
(dpkg-intensive workload)
That's because dpkg is known for using (f)sync very heavily. btrfs
honours the sync request in all cases, so it's much much slower than
ext3, which doesn't.
Hmm, is it really the case with ext3/ext4 (ignoring fsync in some cases)?
Sounds like a bug in ext3/ext4 then.
Is it documented
On Mon, Sep 05, 2011 at 06:23:23PM +0200, Tomasz Chmielewski wrote:
That's because dpkg is known for using (f)sync very heavily. btrfs
honours the sync request in all cases, so it's much much slower than
ext3, which doesn't.
Hmm, is it really the case with ext3/ext4 (ignoring fsync in
On Mon, Sep 05, 2011 at 12:25:21PM -0400, Christoph Hellwig wrote:
On Mon, Sep 05, 2011 at 06:23:23PM +0200, Tomasz Chmielewski wrote:
That's because dpkg is known for using (f)sync very heavily. btrfs
honours the sync request in all cases, so it's much much slower than
ext3, which
On Monday 05 September 2011 16:20:00 Roman Mamedov wrote:
[...]
real 0m6.924s
user 0m0.000s
sys 0m0.464s
To be fair, this was on the 2.6.39.2 kernel, and the performance seems to
be somewhat better on 3.0 (though I didn't do tests like this one or any
significant dpkg operations on it
On Mon, 05 Sep 2011 15:51:17 +0200
Swâmi Petaramesh sw...@petaramesh.org wrote:
Hi list,
I don't trust theoretical benchmarks that much and prefer real-life
benchs on the occasion, so here's mine:
Given 4 laptops, the most powerful of which was running BTRFS and the
others ext3 or
17 matches
Mail list logo
