An Initial Benchmark Of Bcachefs vs. Btrfs vs. EXT4 vs. F2FS vs. XFS On Linux 6.11
https://www.phoronix.com/review/linux-611-filesystemsOpen linkView original on discuss.onlineSyndicated from the fediverse. Read and engage on the original instance.
View original on discuss.onlinehttps://www.phoronix.com/review/linux-611-filesystemsOpen linkView original on discuss.online
7 replies
Btrfs may have compression on by default so take it with a grain of salt
Doesn't Bcachefs, a well?
Neither do according to their respective docs.
Personally though I would've preferred an updated* test with more realistic hardware and zstd compression enabled cause this tested configuration is pretty rare in the real world.
* Their last btrfs compression benchmark was on Linux 4.11 in 2017 it seems, on a 120 GB Sata SSD.
Speak English 😁
A speed comparison between https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bcachefs, https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Btrfs, https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ext4, https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/F2FS, and https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/XFS on Linux. These are all file systems, like windows ntfs https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/NTFS or the apple journalling file system https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Apple_File_System.
While usually unimportant for most use-cases, and with each offering differing features and capabilities, in data-heavy systems speed can be an important factor in determining whether to use one file system over another.
It's also 'my car can beat your car in a drag race' for geeks, because again it usually doesn't matter and features are far more important than speed for the typical user.
This is a Linux community and most of these terms are common to even people new to Linux. I guess your joke isn’t really that funny. I hope you enjoy learning some new technology today!
It was all terms that hardly had vowels.
This Linux community needs to chill out a bit 😊