From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: from mail-qc0-f169.google.com ([209.85.216.169]:59725 "EHLO mail-qc0-f169.google.com" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1751977AbaCIRgm (ORCPT ); Sun, 9 Mar 2014 13:36:42 -0400 Received: by mail-qc0-f169.google.com with SMTP id i17so6822346qcy.28 for ; Sun, 09 Mar 2014 10:36:41 -0700 (PDT) Message-ID: <531CA6A6.4040701@gmail.com> Date: Sun, 09 Mar 2014 13:36:38 -0400 From: Austin S Hemmelgarn MIME-Version: 1.0 To: =?UTF-8?B?U3fDom1pIFBldGFyYW1lc2g=?= , linux-btrfs@vger.kernel.org CC: impactoria@googlemail.com Subject: Re: Massive BTRFS performance degradation References: <531C1CC4.701@gmail.com> <1553599.dDs6U900Vh@tethys> In-Reply-To: <1553599.dDs6U900Vh@tethys> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8 Sender: linux-btrfs-owner@vger.kernel.org List-ID: On 03/09/2014 04:17 AM, Swâmi Petaramesh wrote: > Le dimanche 9 mars 2014 08:48:20 KC a écrit : >> I am experiencing massive performance degradation on my BTRFS >> root partition on SSD. > > BTW, is BTRFS still a SSD-killer ? It had this reputation a while > ago, and I'm not sure if this still is the case, but I don't dare > (yet) converting to BTRFS one of my laptops that has a SSD... > Actually, because of the COW nature of BTRFS, it should be better for SSD's than stuff like ext4 (which DOES kill SSD's when journaling is enabled because it ends up doing thousands of read-modify-write cycles to the same 128k of the disk under just generic usage). Just make sure that you use the 'ssd' and 'discard' mount options.