Linux

7296 readers

739 users here now

A community for everything relating to the GNU/Linux operating system

Also check out:

Original icon base courtesy of lewing@isc.tamu.edu and The GIMP

founded 2 years ago

MODERATORS

Ategon@programming.dev

anzo@programming.dev

dwraf_of_ignorance@programming.dev

Bcachefs, Btrfs, EXT4, F2FS & XFS File-System Performance On Linux 6.15 (www.phoronix.com)

submitted 3 days ago by cm0002@lemmy.world to c/linux@programming.dev

12 comments fedilink hide all child comments

you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments

[–] GenderNeutralBro@lemmy.sdf.org 4 points 2 days ago* (last edited 2 days ago) (1 children)

I guess I'll look into XFS and see if it's suitable for my use cases (I know almost nothing about it), but this supports my opinion that BTRFS is an easy choice over EXT4 at least.

Edit: No snapshot support in XFS, so I'll stick with BTRFS. My performance requirements are not that high on desktop. If I set up a high-performance server that would be another matter.

I was surprised to learn that F2FS has rather small maximum volume sizes. 16TB with 4K block sizes, 64TB with 16K block sizes. But your whole kernel needs to use 16K pages to use 16K F2FS blocks, which seems like more trouble than it's worth. Either way, it's so non-future-proof I'm not even going to think about it.

[–] DarkMetatron@feddit.org 3 points 1 day ago

F2FS was made primary with removable storage like SD cards and USB thumb drives in mind.

16TB is still a few years away for those, but yes a update to add larger sizes would not be that bad.