From: Duncan <1i5t5.duncan@cox.net>
To: linux-btrfs@vger.kernel.org
Subject: Re: ext4 vs btrfs performance on SSD array
Date: Wed, 27 Aug 2014 07:10:19 +0000 (UTC) [thread overview]
Message-ID: <pan$646f5$964a0f2f$c0fb64a3$d18066b7@cox.net> (raw)
In-Reply-To: CAEp=YLgzsLbmEfGB5YKVcHP4CQ-_z1yxnZ0tpo7gjKZ2e1ma5g@mail.gmail.com
Nikolai Grigoriev posted on Tue, 26 Aug 2014 19:39:08 -0400 as excerpted:
> Kernel: 3.8.13-35.3.5.el6uek.x86_64 #2 SMP Fri Aug 8 21:58:11 PDT 2014
> x86_64 x86_64 x86_64 GNU/Linux
> Btrfs v0.20-rc1
I've no answer for your question, but you know how old both your kernel
and btrfs-progs versions are, for a filesystem under as heavy development
as btrfs is, right?
The normal recommendation is to run the latest stable series kernel,
3.16.x at this time, unless you have specific reason not to (like the
below, or because you're specifically comparing multiple btrfs kernel-
spaces). Userspace isn't quite as critical, but 3.14.2 is current (with
3.16 soon to be released), and 3.12 was the first one of the new
versioning sequence and currently the minimum recommended. Btrfs-progs
v0.20-rc1 is as ancient as a 3.8 kernel.
Tho there's a current known btrfs kworker thread lockup bug that
apparently only affects those using the compress mount option. Btrfs
converted from using its own private worker threads to generic kworker
threads in 3.15, so previous to that wasn't affected, while all current
releases in the 3.15 and 3.16 series (and 3.17 thru rc2, rc3 should have
the patch) are affected. The patch is marked for stable so should end up
in 3.16 stable series too, tho probably not 3.15 as AFAIK as a non-long-
term-support release it's already EOL or close to it. (3.14 is an LTS
but as I said the bug didn't affect it so no backported patch necessary.)
So that'd be a good reason to stay with 3.14 (which as I said is LTS) for
the time being, but back further than that is definitely older than would
be recommended for anything btrfs related, and both kernel 3.8 and
userspace 0.20-rc1 are positively ancient.
--
Duncan - List replies preferred. No HTML msgs.
"Every nonfree program has a lord, a master --
and if you use the program, he is your master." Richard Stallman
next prev parent reply other threads:[~2014-08-27 7:10 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 14+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
2014-08-26 23:39 ext4 vs btrfs performance on SSD array Nikolai Grigoriev
2014-08-27 7:10 ` Duncan [this message]
2014-08-27 21:59 ` Nikolai Grigoriev
2014-09-02 0:08 ` Dave Chinner
2014-09-02 1:22 ` Christoph Hellwig
2014-09-02 11:31 ` Theodore Ts'o
2014-09-02 14:20 ` Jan Kara
2014-09-02 14:55 ` Theodore Ts'o
2014-09-02 12:55 ` Zack Coffey
2014-09-02 13:40 ` Austin S Hemmelgarn
2014-09-03 0:01 ` NeilBrown
2014-09-05 16:08 ` Christoph Hellwig
2014-09-05 16:40 ` Jeff Moyer
2014-09-05 16:50 ` Jens Axboe
Reply instructions:
You may reply publicly to this message via plain-text email
using any one of the following methods:
* Save the following mbox file, import it into your mail client,
and reply-to-all from there: mbox
Avoid top-posting and favor interleaved quoting:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Posting_style#Interleaved_style
* Reply using the --to, --cc, and --in-reply-to
switches of git-send-email(1):
git send-email \
--in-reply-to='pan$646f5$964a0f2f$c0fb64a3$d18066b7@cox.net' \
--to=1i5t5.duncan@cox.net \
--cc=linux-btrfs@vger.kernel.org \
/path/to/YOUR_REPLY
https://kernel.org/pub/software/scm/git/docs/git-send-email.html
* If your mail client supports setting the In-Reply-To header
via mailto: links, try the mailto: link
Be sure your reply has a Subject: header at the top and a blank line
before the message body.
This is a public inbox, see mirroring instructions
for how to clone and mirror all data and code used for this inbox;
as well as URLs for NNTP newsgroup(s).