• redcalcium@lemmy.institute
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    24
    arrow-down
    4
    ·
    1 year ago

    I think it’s not btrfs that’s slow, it’s bcachefs that’s insanely fast. Bcachefs almost as fast as ext4 while having that many features is insane.

    • Chewy@discuss.tchncs.de
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      22
      arrow-down
      1
      ·
      edit-2
      1 year ago

      This screenshot is the only metric where btrfs is incredibly slow.

      Bcachefs random and sequential writes and reads are much slower than other filesystems in this benchmark.

      I have no idea how the actual real world performance will be. Bcachefs still misses a lot of features so I’ll continue to follow the development, hopefully including performance improvements.

      Bcachefs sequential write performance in this out-of-the-box comparison was coming in at around half the speed of Btrfs while XFS, F2FS, and EXT4 were the fastest.

      https://www.phoronix.com/review/bcachefs-linux-67/2

      Edit: The benchmarks were done with a debug variable set, which explains the weak IO.

      https://www.phoronix.com/news/Bcachefs-Updated-Linux-6.7

      • redcalcium@lemmy.institute
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        5
        ·
        edit-2
        1 year ago

        Wait, so the benchmarks mostly contradict claims that bcachefs is almost as fast as ext4 except in application startup time? What kind of test performed for that application startup time benchmark?

        • Yote.zip@pawb.social
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          20
          ·
          1 year ago

          Note that in this benchmark, bcachefs had a debug variable turned on that allegedly severely hampered performance. Bcachefs has released an update to disable this variable but Phoronix hasn’t redone benchmarks yet. I wouldn’t put much value into any bcachefs-related comparisons from this current benchmark.