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
17 matches
Mail list logo
