On 18 September 2015 at 14:10, Austin S Hemmelgarn wrote:
> On 2015-09-17 10:52, Aneurin Price wrote:
>>
>> On 16 September 2015 at 20:21, Austin S Hemmelgarn
>> wrote:
>>>
>>> ZFS has been around for much longer, it's been mature and feature
>>>
On 09/16/2015 10:43 AM, M G Berberich wrote:
Hello,
just for information. I stumbled about a rant about btrfs-performance:
Found this through reddit, I'm reproducing some of his issues
artificially, he's definitely run into some real bugs that aren't
related to "databases suck on btrfs."
On 2015-09-17 11:57, Martin Steigerwald wrote:
Am Mittwoch, 16. September 2015, 23:29:30 CEST schrieb Hugo Mills:
but even then having write-barriers
turned off is still not as safe as having them turned on. Most of
the time when I've tried testing with 'nobarrier' (not just on BTRFS
but on
On 2015-09-17 20:34, Duncan wrote:
Zygo Blaxell posted on Wed, 16 Sep 2015 18:08:56 -0400 as excerpted:
On Wed, Sep 16, 2015 at 03:04:38PM -0400, Vincent Olivier wrote:
OK fine. Let it be clearer then (on the Btrfs wiki): nobarrier is an
absolute no go. Case closed.
Sometimes it is useful
On 2015-09-17 10:52, Aneurin Price wrote:
On 16 September 2015 at 20:21, Austin S Hemmelgarn 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
On 2015-09-16 19:31, Hugo Mills wrote:
On Wed, Sep 16, 2015 at 03:21:26PM -0400, Austin S Hemmelgarn wrote:
On 2015-09-16 12:45, Martin Tippmann wrote:
2015-09-16 17:20 GMT+02:00 Austin S Hemmelgarn :
[...]
[...]
From reading the list I understand that btrfs is still
Am Mittwoch, 16. September 2015, 23:29:30 CEST schrieb Hugo Mills:
> > but even then having write-barriers
> > turned off is still not as safe as having them turned on. Most of
> > the time when I've tried testing with 'nobarrier' (not just on BTRFS
> > but on ext* as well), I had just as many
On 16 September 2015 at 20:21, Austin S Hemmelgarn 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
Zygo Blaxell posted on Wed, 16 Sep 2015 18:08:56 -0400 as excerpted:
> On Wed, Sep 16, 2015 at 03:04:38PM -0400, Vincent Olivier wrote:
>>
>> OK fine. Let it be clearer then (on the Btrfs wiki): nobarrier is an
>> absolute no go. Case closed.
>
> Sometimes it is useful to make an ephemeral
Hello,
just for information. I stumbled about a rant about btrfs-performance:
http://blog.pgaddict.com/posts/friends-dont-let-friends-use-btrfs-for-oltp
MfG
bmg
--
„Des is völlig wurscht, was heut beschlos- | M G Berberich
sen wird: I bin sowieso dagegn!“ |
On 2015-09-16 10:43, M G Berberich wrote:
Hello,
just for information. I stumbled about a rant about btrfs-performance:
http://blog.pgaddict.com/posts/friends-dont-let-friends-use-btrfs-for-oltp
MfG
bmg
It is worth noting a few things that were done incorrectly in this
Hi,
2015-09-16 17:20 GMT+02:00 Austin S Hemmelgarn :
[...]
> 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
Hi,
> On Sep 16, 2015, at 11:20 AM, Austin S Hemmelgarn
> wrote:
>
> On 2015-09-16 10:43, M G Berberich wrote:
>> Hello,
>>
>> just for information. I stumbled about a rant about btrfs-performance:
>>
>>
Some response to your criticism:
1. How would that hole fare with a fully battery-backed/flash-backed
path (battery-backed or flash-backed HBA with disks with full power-loss
protection, like the Intel S3500)? In such a situation (quite
commonplace in server-land), power-loss should not cause
On 2015-09-16 12:45, Martin Tippmann wrote:
Hi,
2015-09-16 17:20 GMT+02:00 Austin S Hemmelgarn :
[...]
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
On 2015-09-16 12:51, Vincent Olivier wrote:
Hi,
On Sep 16, 2015, at 11:20 AM, Austin S Hemmelgarn wrote:
On 2015-09-16 10:43, M G Berberich wrote:
Hello,
just for information. I stumbled about a rant about btrfs-performance:
> On Sep 16, 2015, at 2:22 PM, Austin S Hemmelgarn wrote:
>
> On 2015-09-16 12:51, Vincent Olivier wrote:
>> Hi,
>>
>>
>>> On Sep 16, 2015, at 11:20 AM, Austin S Hemmelgarn
>>> wrote:
>>>
>>> On 2015-09-16 10:43, M G Berberich wrote:
Hello,
On 2015-09-16 12:25, Zia Nayamuth wrote:
Some response to your criticism:
1. How would that hole fare with a fully battery-backed/flash-backed
path (battery-backed or flash-backed HBA with disks with full power-loss
protection, like the Intel S3500)? In such a situation (quite
commonplace in
On 2015-09-16 15:04, Vincent Olivier wrote:
On Sep 16, 2015, at 2:22 PM, Austin S Hemmelgarn wrote:
On 2015-09-16 12:51, Vincent Olivier wrote:
Hi,
On Sep 16, 2015, at 11:20 AM, Austin S Hemmelgarn wrote:
On 2015-09-16 10:43, M G Berberich
Vincent Olivier posted on Wed, 16 Sep 2015 15:04:38 -0400 as excerpted:
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
On Wed, Sep 16, 2015 at 03:04:38PM -0400, Vincent Olivier wrote:
> > On Sep 16, 2015, at 2:22 PM, Austin S Hemmelgarn
> > wrote:
> > On 2015-09-16 12:51, Vincent Olivier wrote:
> >>> On Sep 16, 2015, at 11:20 AM, Austin S Hemmelgarn
> >>> wrote:
>
On Wed, Sep 16, 2015 at 03:21:26PM -0400, Austin S Hemmelgarn wrote:
> On 2015-09-16 12:45, Martin Tippmann wrote:
> >2015-09-16 17:20 GMT+02:00 Austin S Hemmelgarn :
> >[...]
[...]
> > From reading the list I understand that btrfs is still very much work
> >in progress and
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
On Wed, Sep 16, 2015 at 03:08:43PM -0400, Austin S Hemmelgarn wrote:
> On 2015-09-16 12:25, Zia Nayamuth wrote:
> >Some response to your criticism:
> >
> >1. How would that hole fare with a fully battery-backed/flash-backed
> >path (battery-backed or
On Wed, Sep 16, 2015 at 12:45 PM, Martin Tippmann
wrote:
> 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
24 matches
Mail list logo