So I am looking for a faster file system, when compiling packages ext4 seems slow compared to xfs
Is ZFS or BTRFS even faster than xfs? Or similar?
Thanks!
1 Like
ZFS is not your friend.
BTRFS generally speaking is not faster than ext4, but I have not checked the compile benchmarks.
XFS and F2FS are both pretty decent.
1 Like
XFS is by far the fastest though I haven't played with F2FS. With XFS it notes what directory an item is from and does a space check for where its going. If it can move it it just renames the access block on your drive to whatever directory you're moving the item to and defrags any remnants. Its better used with an SSD certainly, but even HDD's take it on extremely well.
I used to think that it was 5 GB blocks and up that it would move items, but it will do that, it seems, between storage blocks and obviously partitions and drives. The storage block thing I only figured out recently.
But yes XFS is the fastest.
I don't know how much it counts but my Moto G is using F2FS as a filesystem and performance are still really good even after 4 years of use, without any format. I haven't test performance out of the box and after but, from what I can see, degradation has been really minimal in 4 years. So for NAND flahs F2FS I surely pretty good in my opinion. XFS looks promising to me too, but never used it extensively.
1 Like
Why is that?
This might be worth a read; http://www.phoronix.com/scan.php?page=article&item=linux-48-hdd&num=1
1 Like
as mentioned I noticed a rather big improvement when I swapped from ext4 to XFS and I was rather impressed, was almost instant when pulling binaries and getting them installed, was like a 1 second wait then boom, all installed.
This is all for a 500GB SSD also
1 Like
Yeah for an FS designed in 1992 it definitely loves SSD's.
For ZFS to be fast, you need a crap ton of ram.
ReiserFS
Swapped to this and my wife died????
1 Like
I don't have a lot in my VM but my desktop has 16GB to throw at any FS
Do you have 16 gigs free or 16 gigs total?
ZFS is designed and used to handle data across multiple hard drives to prevent data corruption.
But if you have 16 GB free, and you can make a small spare partition to throw some benchmarks at, then give it a try.
But my money is still on xfs or f2fs.
Total, I would say around 8GB free for a 500GB SSD should be more than enough surely.
1 Like
Interesting, I would have thought that XFS would come out on top in the compile bench, strong showing for EXT4 there. Phoronix does a very god job with the openbenchmark thing, appreciated. There's another one comparing BTRFS, EXT4 and F2FS over kernel 4.4 to 4.7:
https://www.phoronix.com/scan.php?page=article&item=linux-44-47-fs&num=2
Bcachefs.
XFS.
I once tuned XFS, and small files and programs would open up instantly.
How about full disk encryption with XFS?
Anything importaint to know about that?
BTRFS must have overhead checking file integrity. Out side of a ram disk why does file systems speed matter ? Most of my OS is cached in ram via linux and runs at ram speed. 16G ram and hardly used outside of VM's
I haven't tried with XFS but I have with ext4 and if you have a decent CPU, and especially if it has the AES extensions you will see pretty much identical performance between encrypted and not encrypted.