@travisdh1 said in Phoronix with another file system performance test, F2FS and brtfs.:
@scottalanmiller said in Phoronix with another file system performance test, F2FS and brtfs.:
@travisdh1 said in Phoronix with another file system performance test, F2FS and brtfs.:
@scottalanmiller said in Phoronix with another file system performance test, F2FS and brtfs.:
Remember that BtrFS like ZFS is designed for everything except performance. Being fast was never expected or intended to the goals of filesystems of these types. Anyone looking for performance from them is quite lost. They are "fast enough" for sure, but never were they expected to compete with traditional filesystems that do so much less.
While I generally agree, I'd hate to have btrfs or XFS as the backing storage for XenServer, even at small scale single server settings.
But...
Why? Why do you feel that a tiny bit of filesystem performance is going to be a big deal in most cases? What is driving you to react in that way to it? XFS is super fast, the polar opposite of BtrFS. Why would you hate both? What would make you happy?Doh, meant ZFS, not XFS.
Considering how many people clamor to get ZFS or BtrFS for virtualization then rave about the performance, I think that the reaction proves the point - the performance never mattered in the first place 🙂