From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Felix Blanke Subject: Re: Rename BTRfs to MuchSlowerFS ? Date: Thu, 15 Sep 2011 21:37:24 +0200 Message-ID: <4E7253F4.9020005@gmail.com> References: <4E64D3D5.7020407@petaramesh.org> <15663472.1RTxtZJx8a@tethys> <1411501.d4mgBNBG2i@tethys> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1; format=flowed Cc: linux-btrfs , "Fajar A. Nugraha" To: =?ISO-8859-1?Q?Sw=E2mi_Petaramesh?= Return-path: In-Reply-To: <1411501.d4mgBNBG2i@tethys> List-ID: I'm using btrfs since one year now and it's quite fast. I don't feel an= y=20 differences to other filesystems. Never tried a benchmark but for my=20 daily work it's nice. I also never had any issues with the memory. Imho= =20 nowadays memory isn't a problem at all in desktop computers. I bought=20 8gb of memory 2 years before because it was so damn cheap. Never used=20 that mutch, but it was almost for free :) The advantage to ext4 for me is the build in raid1 and the snapshots.=20 I'm using the snapshot feature for my local backups. I like it because=20 it's really easy and uses very few storage. A simple "Snapshot -> Rsync= =20 to a different disk -> Snapshot" script is the perfect local backup met= hod. I really appreciate the work of the developers! Btrfs is great and I'm=20 110% sure it will become better and better over the next month. Best regards, =46elix On 9/7/11 4:15 PM, Sw=E2mi Petaramesh wrote: > Le Mercredi 7 Septembre 2011 00:11:25 vous avez =E9crit : >> Reading your post, at this point I'd actually recommend you stick wi= th >> ext4. > > I actually shifted back from BTRFS to ext4 and fell like having offer= ed myself > a brand new computer, about 20 times faster, me happy ;-) > >> Both btrfs and zfs are great, but IMHO btrfs is not ready for >> daily use by "ordinary" user yet, while zfs is a memory hog >> (especially for laptops, which is part of the reason why I'm using >> btrfs instead of zfs on this one). > > True, ZFS is excellent but a memory hog (and strongly advises using a= 64-bit > OS) but I was surprised to discover that BTRFS was such a memory eate= r itself, > with kernel 3.0. My system was swapping like mad ! > > I use (kernel) ZFS on my 64-bit main machine and I'm plain happy with= it, and > tried ZFS on my 32-bit laptop in the hope to get more performance for= less > memory ; alas I just got a memory-hungry system running damn slow... = =46or the > time being I will stick to ZFS for 64-bit machines with>=3D 4GB RAM, = and to > ext4 for 32-bit systems with less RAM... > > I don't feel that BTRFS gives any advantage in its current state of > development. Alas. > -- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-btrfs" = in the body of a message to majordomo@vger.kernel.org More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html