Overclock.net › Forums › Software, Programming and Coding › Operating Systems › Linux, Unix › echo "The `uname` Club" (NEW POLL)
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:

echo "The `uname` Club" (NEW POLL) - Page 75

Poll Results: How long have you been using your current, main installation?

 
  • 24% (50)
    less then a month
  • 23% (47)
    less then six months
  • 14% (30)
    less then a year
  • 24% (49)
    less then three years
  • 13% (27)
    three years+
203 Total Votes  
post #741 of 4043
Quote:
Originally Posted by Rookie1337 View Post

Is it risky to use the same FS settings as Phoronix had in his test? Mainly asking data=ordered, and what to choose between CFQ and Deadline.

date=ordered is the safe option. Basically all data is written to the drive before journal/metadata updates are made. relatime is the new option for dealing with the access time. It's safe in that the kernel won't corrupt your data. Depending upon the applications you use, it may mess with them. However, most applications (ie 99.999%) are fine.

Between CFQ and Deadline, that comes down to use case. You can switch them easily enough. Look in /sys/block/sd?/queue/scheduler for your specific scheduler (replace ? with drive letter). There is a kernel command line to use as well to switch.
post #742 of 4043
Quote:
Originally Posted by jrl1357 View Post

yeah, and I've seen other benchmarks that put it ahead of ext4 and trading blows, plus I never noticed any performance drop on arch, of course that could have been switching to a distro with both a minimal install AND systemd, although now that I think about it I'm using ext4 on F17, I've cut all the extra services and its faster then arch was on my system, the main difference being the filesystem.

I'm yet to see any benchmarks with BtrFS trading blows with ext4
post #743 of 4043
Quote:
Originally Posted by Plan9 View Post

I'm yet to see any benchmarks with BtrFS trading blows with ext4

Depends on the kernel revision, btrfs isn't really that far off ext4 as a whole. Depending on the kernel revision, it has been seen to be equal and on some tests better than ext4. It's just not better overall, it's also a lot younger if you consider ext4 was built on previous systems in place.
Current Rig
(14 items)
 
  
CPUMotherboardGraphicsRAM
FX-8350 4.6GHz@1.44v GA-990FXA-UD3 R4.0 HD 7950 (1100/1450) 8G Muskin DDR3 1866@8CLS 
Hard DriveOptical DriveOSMonitor
1TB WD LiteOn DVD-RW DL Linux/Windows 19" Phillips TV 1080p 
PowerCaseMouseMouse Pad
OCZ 600W Generic Junk Logitech MX400 Generic Junk 
Audio
SBL 5.1 
  hide details  
Reply
Current Rig
(14 items)
 
  
CPUMotherboardGraphicsRAM
FX-8350 4.6GHz@1.44v GA-990FXA-UD3 R4.0 HD 7950 (1100/1450) 8G Muskin DDR3 1866@8CLS 
Hard DriveOptical DriveOSMonitor
1TB WD LiteOn DVD-RW DL Linux/Windows 19" Phillips TV 1080p 
PowerCaseMouseMouse Pad
OCZ 600W Generic Junk Logitech MX400 Generic Junk 
Audio
SBL 5.1 
  hide details  
Reply
post #744 of 4043
Quote:
Originally Posted by mushroomboy View Post

Depends on the kernel revision, btrfs isn't really that far off ext4 as a whole. Depending on the kernel revision, it has been seen to be equal and on some tests better than ext4. It's just not better overall, it's also a lot younger if you consider ext4 was built on previous systems in place.

Interesting. What benchmarks did BtrFS excel at then?
(don't take this the wrong way, I do believe you and I'm not doubting your sources. Just looking to expand my knowledge on the matter smile.gif )
post #745 of 4043
Not really Mint but I am using Mintppc 9.3 on my Imac G3 and dual boot to Ubuntu 12.04 on my FX-8150. Glad to see an area with some linux experts!
FX8150
(12 items)
 
Q8300
(5 items)
 
 
CPUMotherboardGraphicsGraphics
AMD FX-8150 SABERTOOTH 990FX NVIDIA GeForce GTX 660  NVIDIA GeForce GTX 660  
RAMRAMHard DriveCooling
Corsair  Corsair  seagate momentus noctua c14 
OSMonitorPowerCase
Windows 7 Pro aoc e2243fwk corsair gs 700 NZXT Phantom 
CPUMotherboardGraphicsRAM
Intel Core 2 Quad Q8300 DG41RQ Intel(R) G41 Express Chipset Crucial Technology  
RAM
Crucial Technology  
  hide details  
Reply
FX8150
(12 items)
 
Q8300
(5 items)
 
 
CPUMotherboardGraphicsGraphics
AMD FX-8150 SABERTOOTH 990FX NVIDIA GeForce GTX 660  NVIDIA GeForce GTX 660  
RAMRAMHard DriveCooling
Corsair  Corsair  seagate momentus noctua c14 
OSMonitorPowerCase
Windows 7 Pro aoc e2243fwk corsair gs 700 NZXT Phantom 
CPUMotherboardGraphicsRAM
Intel Core 2 Quad Q8300 DG41RQ Intel(R) G41 Express Chipset Crucial Technology  
RAM
Crucial Technology  
  hide details  
Reply
post #746 of 4043
Quote:
Originally Posted by MJD View Post

date=ordered is the safe option. Basically all data is written to the drive before journal/metadata updates are made. relatime is the new option for dealing with the access time. It's safe in that the kernel won't corrupt your data. Depending upon the applications you use, it may mess with them. However, most applications (ie 99.999%) are fine.
Between CFQ and Deadline, that comes down to use case. You can switch them easily enough. Look in /sys/block/sd?/queue/scheduler for your specific scheduler (replace ? with drive letter). There is a kernel command line to use as well to switch.

So data=ordered would not be something to use if you wanted to milk a little more speed?
     
CPUGraphicsRAMHard Drive
Intel Core m3-6Y30 Intel HD515 8GB 1866DDR3L Micron M600 MTFDDAV256MBF M.2, 256 GB 
CoolingOSOSMonitor
Fanless Win10 Home x64 Kubuntu 16.04 (requires Linux kernel 4.5/4.6) 13.3 inch 16:9, 1920x1080 pixel, AU Optronics A... 
CPUMotherboardGraphicsRAM
AthlonIIX4 640 3.62GHz (250x14.5) 2.5GHz NB Asus M4A785TD-M EVO MSI GTX275 (Stock 666) 8GBs of GSkill 1600 
RAMHard DriveHard DriveHard Drive
4GBs of Adata 1333 Kingston HyperX 3k 120GB WD Caviar Black 500GB Hitachi Deskstar 1TB 
Optical DriveCoolingOSOS
LG 8X BDR (WHL08S20) Cooler Master Hyper 212+ Kubuntu x64 Windows 7 x64 
OSMonitorPowerCase
Bodhi Linux x64 Acer G215H (1920x1080) Seasonic 520 HAF912 
CPUMotherboardGraphicsRAM
N450 1.8GHz AC and 1.66GHz batt ASUS proprietary for 1001P GMA3150 (can play bluray now!?) 1GB DDR2 
Hard DriveOptical DriveOSOS
160GB LGLHDLBDRE32X Bodhi Linux Fedora LXDE 
OSOSMonitorKeyboard
Kubuntu SLAX 1280x600 + Dell 15inch Excellent! 
PowerCase
6 cells=6-12hrs and a charger 1001P MU17 Black 
  hide details  
Reply
     
CPUGraphicsRAMHard Drive
Intel Core m3-6Y30 Intel HD515 8GB 1866DDR3L Micron M600 MTFDDAV256MBF M.2, 256 GB 
CoolingOSOSMonitor
Fanless Win10 Home x64 Kubuntu 16.04 (requires Linux kernel 4.5/4.6) 13.3 inch 16:9, 1920x1080 pixel, AU Optronics A... 
CPUMotherboardGraphicsRAM
AthlonIIX4 640 3.62GHz (250x14.5) 2.5GHz NB Asus M4A785TD-M EVO MSI GTX275 (Stock 666) 8GBs of GSkill 1600 
RAMHard DriveHard DriveHard Drive
4GBs of Adata 1333 Kingston HyperX 3k 120GB WD Caviar Black 500GB Hitachi Deskstar 1TB 
Optical DriveCoolingOSOS
LG 8X BDR (WHL08S20) Cooler Master Hyper 212+ Kubuntu x64 Windows 7 x64 
OSMonitorPowerCase
Bodhi Linux x64 Acer G215H (1920x1080) Seasonic 520 HAF912 
CPUMotherboardGraphicsRAM
N450 1.8GHz AC and 1.66GHz batt ASUS proprietary for 1001P GMA3150 (can play bluray now!?) 1GB DDR2 
Hard DriveOptical DriveOSOS
160GB LGLHDLBDRE32X Bodhi Linux Fedora LXDE 
OSOSMonitorKeyboard
Kubuntu SLAX 1280x600 + Dell 15inch Excellent! 
PowerCase
6 cells=6-12hrs and a charger 1001P MU17 Black 
  hide details  
Reply
post #747 of 4043
Quote:
Originally Posted by Plan9 View Post

Interesting. What benchmarks did BtrFS excel at then?
(don't take this the wrong way, I do believe you and I'm not doubting your sources. Just looking to expand my knowledge on the matter smile.gif )

You've got to follow all the phoronix benchmarks, including RC stuff and GIT stuff. Honestly it's not worth it as I said, overall EXT4 takes the lead. I'd say in like 75% of the cases EXT4 is either equal or above. Or close enough that I wouldn't boast it being a huge lead, I'd still give BTRFS some time. It might not even gain much more ground and I'm fine with EXT4 so I don't really care or fret. =P
Current Rig
(14 items)
 
  
CPUMotherboardGraphicsRAM
FX-8350 4.6GHz@1.44v GA-990FXA-UD3 R4.0 HD 7950 (1100/1450) 8G Muskin DDR3 1866@8CLS 
Hard DriveOptical DriveOSMonitor
1TB WD LiteOn DVD-RW DL Linux/Windows 19" Phillips TV 1080p 
PowerCaseMouseMouse Pad
OCZ 600W Generic Junk Logitech MX400 Generic Junk 
Audio
SBL 5.1 
  hide details  
Reply
Current Rig
(14 items)
 
  
CPUMotherboardGraphicsRAM
FX-8350 4.6GHz@1.44v GA-990FXA-UD3 R4.0 HD 7950 (1100/1450) 8G Muskin DDR3 1866@8CLS 
Hard DriveOptical DriveOSMonitor
1TB WD LiteOn DVD-RW DL Linux/Windows 19" Phillips TV 1080p 
PowerCaseMouseMouse Pad
OCZ 600W Generic Junk Logitech MX400 Generic Junk 
Audio
SBL 5.1 
  hide details  
Reply
post #748 of 4043
Thread Starter 
Quote:
Originally Posted by Plan9 View Post

Quote:
Originally Posted by jrl1357 View Post

yeah, and I've seen other benchmarks that put it ahead of ext4 and trading blows, plus I never noticed any performance drop on arch, of course that could have been switching to a distro with both a minimal install AND systemd, although now that I think about it I'm using ext4 on F17, I've cut all the extra services and its faster then arch was on my system, the main difference being the filesystem.

I'm yet to see any benchmarks with BtrFS trading blows with ext4

http://www.phoronix.com/scan.php?page=article&item=zfs_ext4_btrfs&num=1

looking at this ZFS and EXT4 trade blows while overall BTrFS would be the system of choice. UFS2 doesn't do so well, I think the FreeBSD Installer needs to start supporting a root install without dropping into the shell soon, if Debian GNU/kfreebsd and PC-BSD can do it, it can too.

EDIT---

what I think I will do is not convert my install until after I upgrade to F18. that way I can roll back to ext4 if I notice any slow down.
post #749 of 4043
Only had a quick skim (I'll read in more detail tonight) but one thing did stand out: surely the threaded IO testers are more a test of the FreeBSD kernel verses Linux rather than ZFS vs BtrFS?

Anyhow, I'll have a proper read tonight. Thanks for the link smile.gif

[edit]
Quote:
While ZFS has long been looked upon highly as being an advanced file-system -- it does offer a really great feature-set -- and something that various stakeholders have wanted on Linux within the kernel if the license was changed (right now the closest solution is running ZFS as a FUSE file-system on Linux since the CDDL license is incompatible with the kernel's GPL)

^ that's not entirely true either. Native ZFS does exist Linux in two forms:
1. CDDL code compiled for Linux (because it's distributed source code compiled into Linux by the user, it's perfectly valid even under the terms of GPL).
2. GRUB ZFS drivers (ZFS -the file system- isn't CDDL, only the source code. GRUB has GPL ZFS drivers and other budding ZFS developers are free to expand on those drivers to support the complete ZFS feature set if they wanted to).
Edited by Plan9 - 12/13/12 at 8:36am
post #750 of 4043
Btrfs seems to be faster in the areas where it matters for modern computers.

I can't wait for Btrfs, Wayland, systemd. What more weaknesses does Linux have that are/should be addressed?
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:
  Return Home
  Back to Forum: Linux, Unix
Overclock.net › Forums › Software, Programming and Coding › Operating Systems › Linux, Unix › echo "The `uname` Club" (NEW POLL)