Re: FYIO: A rant about btrfs

2015-09-24 Thread Aneurin Price
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 >>>

Re: FYIO: A rant about btrfs

2015-09-23 Thread Josef Bacik
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."

Re: FYIO: A rant about btrfs

2015-09-18 Thread Austin S Hemmelgarn
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

Re: FYIO: A rant about btrfs

2015-09-18 Thread Austin S Hemmelgarn
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

Re: FYIO: A rant about btrfs

2015-09-18 Thread Austin S Hemmelgarn
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

Re: FYIO: A rant about btrfs

2015-09-17 Thread Austin S Hemmelgarn
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

Re: FYIO: A rant about btrfs

2015-09-17 Thread Martin Steigerwald
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

Re: FYIO: A rant about btrfs

2015-09-17 Thread Aneurin Price
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

Re: FYIO: A rant about btrfs

2015-09-17 Thread Duncan
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

FYIO: A rant about btrfs

2015-09-16 Thread M G Berberich
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!“ |

Re: FYIO: A rant about btrfs

2015-09-16 Thread Austin S Hemmelgarn
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

Re: FYIO: A rant about btrfs

2015-09-16 Thread Martin Tippmann
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

Re: FYIO: A rant about btrfs

2015-09-16 Thread Vincent Olivier
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: >> >>

Re: FYIO: A rant about btrfs

2015-09-16 Thread Zia Nayamuth
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

Re: FYIO: A rant about btrfs

2015-09-16 Thread Austin S Hemmelgarn
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

Re: FYIO: A rant about btrfs

2015-09-16 Thread Austin S Hemmelgarn
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:

Re: FYIO: A rant about btrfs

2015-09-16 Thread Vincent Olivier
> 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,

Re: FYIO: A rant about btrfs

2015-09-16 Thread Austin S Hemmelgarn
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

Re: FYIO: A rant about btrfs

2015-09-16 Thread Austin S Hemmelgarn
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

Re: FYIO: A rant about btrfs

2015-09-16 Thread Duncan
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

Re: FYIO: A rant about btrfs

2015-09-16 Thread Zygo Blaxell
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: >

Re: FYIO: A rant about btrfs

2015-09-16 Thread Hugo Mills
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

Re: FYIO: A rant about btrfs

2015-09-16 Thread Hugo Mills
-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

Re: FYIO: A rant about btrfs

2015-09-16 Thread Rich Freeman
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