On Monday 26 September 2011, Robert Schwebel wrote:
> On Thu, Aug 18, 2011 at 02:28:07PM +0200, Arnd Bergmann wrote:
> > ext4 has optimizations for flash media in it and btrfs is better by
> > design.
>
> Do you have a pointer to more info about what kind of optimizations for
> flash media ext4 ha
Arnd,
On Thu, Aug 18, 2011 at 02:28:07PM +0200, Arnd Bergmann wrote:
> ext4 has optimizations for flash media in it and btrfs is better by
> design.
Do you have a pointer to more info about what kind of optimizations for
flash media ext4 has? We tried to find something, but didn't so far.
rsc
--
On Thu, 2011-08-18 at 13:18 +0100, Tixy wrote:
> I also tested the different btrfs mount options (ssd, nossd and
> ssd_spread). They don't show much difference with the untar case.
To follow on from this... When benchmarking debboottrap, I found the
'ssd' option is three times faster than 'nossd
On Thu, 2011-08-18 at 14:28 +0200, Arnd Bergmann wrote:
> On Thursday 18 August 2011, Tixy wrote:
> > I couldn't test logfs because, whilst mkfs worked, the mount command (or
> > the kernel?) doesn't seem to support it.
>
> Probably the module was not enabled in the kernel.
It wasn't. But after e
On Thursday 18 August 2011, Tixy wrote:
> On Thu, 2011-08-18 at 14:28 +0200, Arnd Bergmann wrote:
> > On Thursday 18 August 2011, Tixy wrote:
> > > I couldn't test logfs because, whilst mkfs worked, the mount command (or
> > > the kernel?) doesn't seem to support it.
> >
> > Probably the module wa
On Wed, 2011-08-17 at 11:48 +0100, James Tunnicliffe wrote:
> On 17 August 2011 08:55, Tixy wrote:
> > For untaring kernel source on one of my good performance
> > SD cards on a Beagleboard-xM takes:
> >
> > m s
> > ext4 3:30
> > ext3 8:30
> > ext2 5:00
> > btrfs 13:40
> > n
On Thursday 18 August 2011, Tixy wrote:
> Mystery solved...
>
> I didn't have btrfs-tools (nor nilfs nor logfs) installed. My test
> script didn't notice that mkfs failed because I was piping the output
> through tee, (which, being the end of the pipeline, always gave a
> success result).
>
> Thi
On Wed, 2011-08-17 at 11:48 +0100, James Tunnicliffe wrote:
> This is odd. When I performed tests btrfs and ext4 were both about the
> same speed for copying a mixture of large and small files to. I was
> testing them using my laptop card reader though. Tixy: Do you get
> similar btrfs vs ext4 resu
On Wed, 2011-08-17 at 13:11 +0200, Arnd Bergmann wrote:
> On Wednesday 17 August 2011, James Tunnicliffe wrote:
> > One thing I noticed during Ubuntu boot on my Panda was that the mount
> > process would say that it detected btrfs was running on a flash card
> > and it had enabled flash mode. I don
On Wednesday 17 August 2011, Yasushi SHOJI wrote:
> >
> > The version of btrfs that I'm looking at does not have any optimization
> > for cheap flash drives, only for SSD.
>
> does anyone checked on seekwatcher[1], a visualizing tool Chris Mason
> has wrote. I'm pretty sure that Chris would like
On Wednesday 17 August 2011, Tixy wrote:
> On Wed, 2011-08-17 at 13:11 +0200, Arnd Bergmann wrote:
> > On Wednesday 17 August 2011, James Tunnicliffe wrote:
> > > One thing I noticed during Ubuntu boot on my Panda was that the mount
> > > process would say that it detected btrfs was running on a fl
At Wed, 17 Aug 2011 13:11:51 +0200,
Arnd Bergmann wrote:
>
> On Wednesday 17 August 2011, James Tunnicliffe wrote:
> > One thing I noticed during Ubuntu boot on my Panda was that the mount
> > process would say that it detected btrfs was running on a flash card
> > and it had enabled flash mode. I
On Wednesday 17 August 2011, James Tunnicliffe wrote:
> > m s
> > ext4 3:30
> > ext3 8:30
> > ext2 5:00
> > btrfs 13:40
> > nilfs 10:40
> > logfs 10:00
> >
> > this is using default mount options for file system but with noatime.
> >
> > These timings also bear out prelim
On 17 August 2011 08:55, Tixy wrote:
> On Wed, 2011-08-17 at 00:13 -0300, Ricardo Salveti wrote:
>> Yeah, if we're doing this change it seems it would make more sense to
>> jump directly to the btrfs, unless we can demonstrate that the
>> performance is not that superior and have any kind of block
On Wed, 2011-08-17 at 00:13 -0300, Ricardo Salveti wrote:
> Yeah, if we're doing this change it seems it would make more sense to
> jump directly to the btrfs, unless we can demonstrate that the
> performance is not that superior and have any kind of blocker issues.
>
> Do we have any kind of bench
On Fri, Aug 12, 2011 at 4:11 PM, Arnd Bergmann wrote:
> On Friday 12 August 2011 21:12:54 Fathi Boudra wrote:
>>
>> At the last release meeting, the switch to ext4 by default has been
>> mentioned.
>> My understanding is that we reach an agreement on the switch to ext4
>> [1] but it still
>> not
On Friday 12 August 2011 21:12:54 Fathi Boudra wrote:
>
> At the last release meeting, the switch to ext4 by default has been mentioned.
> My understanding is that we reach an agreement on the switch to ext4
> [1] but it still
> not clear if it will happen this month.
>
> To make it happen, it wi
Hi,
At the last release meeting, the switch to ext4 by default has been mentioned.
My understanding is that we reach an agreement on the switch to ext4
[1] but it still
not clear if it will happen this month.
To make it happen, it will require several bug fixes:
https://bugs.launchpad.net/ubuntu/
18 matches
Mail list logo
