EXT4 Has A Very Nice Performance Optimization For Linux 6.11
www.phoronix.com

Ted Ts’o sent out the EXT4 updates today for Linux 6.11. He explained in that pull request:

“Many cleanups and bug fixes in ext4, especially for the fast commit feature. Also some performance improvements; in particular, improving IOPS and throughput on fast devices running Async Direct I/O by up to 20% by optimizing jbd2_transaction_committed().”

      •  thingsiplay   ( @thingsiplay@beehaw.org ) OP
        7•2 months ago

        I really like the idea of BTRFS and what it can do. For my recent system, build in end of 2023 (not a year ago) I really thought about and compared the systems, but end up using EXT4. Here some thoughts I had:

        I want to use BTRFS as my main system FS, but I wasn’t sure which alternative FS to use (there are other contenders too), if I need the extra functionality, if its 100% stable for me on a non Fedora system and I also did not want to spent the time learning and experimenting with it, yet. But I will. And if other distributions I install or boot into would work well with BTRFS, if they are not on the newest Kernel yet.

        •  narc0tic_bird   ( @narc0tic_bird@lemm.ee ) 
          14•2 months ago

          I’m not quite sure why people are still worried about the stability of btrfs when it has been rock solid for years. Synology has been using it for quite a while now in their NAS systems, they surely wouldn’t if it’d mean a lot of customers were at risk of losing their data.

          There are valid reasons not to be using btrfs (although I’d argue most ordinary use cases don’t have a valid reason), but stability certainly isn’t one of them, independent of the distribution used (unless it’s ancient).

          •  thingsiplay   ( @thingsiplay@beehaw.org ) OP
            3•2 months ago

            Note my research of BTRFS is almost a year old now. And there was still a few headlines making round of problems with BTRFS in some cases. A controlled NAS system is not the same as random user configuration of a random desktop user. And as said in my comment, I was not sure if it would be stable for my installation (when I did my research) and did not claim it to be unstable. On the other side, I know for a fact that EXT4 is stable and I did not research more or experiment to find out which one is better for me.

            Current state of BTRFS: https://btrfs.readthedocs.io/en/latest/Status.html (note when I did my research, Linux was at Kernel v6.4, therefore BTRFS was in a worse situation than today)

          •  ArchAengelus   ( @ArchAengelus@lemmy.dbzer0.com ) 
            3•2 months ago

            Wait til your table with all the checksums gets messed up on an “older” btrfs install. Happened to me on a VM because I didn’t know copy-on-write should be disabled for large frequently partially updated files. It also slowed that VMs IO down a lot.

            Like most file systems, BTRFS is great if you know the edge cases. I recently moved to ZFS on my new work system, which has been a great change in terms of in-line snapshots and the like.

            If EXT4 meets your needs, that’s awesome. If you understand how to use a different FS well or are willing to learn (and risk), I would also encourage other options as well.

          •  thingsiplay   ( @thingsiplay@beehaw.org ) OP
            3•2 months ago

            Sure! I’m interested into the “current” state or real world experience of it. Wouldn’t mind if you post it here. Although I am not sure how relevant it is 1 year later, because the filesystem is quite under development.

              •  thingsiplay   ( @thingsiplay@beehaw.org ) OP
                3•2 months ago

                Thanks. But it’s important to note your experience report is based on the experience of 2019 and the slight edits aren’t changing that. That its being developed is not the same as under maintenance. EXT4 is fully developed and there are only optimizations in performance expected, if anything, while BTRFS still needs active development to improve compatibility and some other features.

                I’m still curious to how to work with it and such a report is still welcome. I’ll give it a read. Edit: Hopefully my reply didn’t sound too negative. I’m interested in the process of going all of this, so the article is useful in a practical sense.

                •  The Doctor   ( @drwho@beehaw.org ) English
                  2•2 months ago

                  My experience is based on running that btrfs array since 2019. It’s still running in production on my server, I still use it daily, and the data I keep on it is still accessed, processed, indexed, and backed up every day. It’s not an experiment for the sake of a blog post, it’s a thing that is part of my personal infrastructure. The reason I update that post periodically is because I learn something new, or something minor has changed and the text should be updated to reflect that. If using btrfs on a busy server every day is the experience of 2019, I don’t know what to say to that.

                  •  thingsiplay   ( @thingsiplay@beehaw.org ) OP
                    2•2 months ago

                    Oh that’s hugely different then. It was not apparent that you were using this setup since the initial blog post. Maybe make a note at the top of the post, so your message (like here) is understood. Don’t get me wrong, I appreciate the clear information you give here and your feedback on how this works. From your report and given its the default FS for Fedora, its absolutely clear that I need to review my bias and view as BTRFS as a contender for my next system drive.

            •  bsergay   ( @bsergay@discuss.online ) 
              2•2 months ago

              Thank you for the reply!

              Extremely slow package manager (the most important one)

              Fair. Though, IIRC, it’s in the same order of magnitude as apt and zypper. But yeah; apk, pacman and xbps are definitely faster by a wide margin. Hopefully, dnf5 will be able to close the gap significantly.

              confusing installer

              I often hear this. But I’m not sure if I understand. Is it because Anaconda does not walk you (explicitly) through all parts of the installation (at least by default)? And, instead, chooses to give the user an overview (at some point) in which the user is expected to go over each one of them by themselves.

              fast deprecation of important technologies and testing of new technologies on its users (making major upgrades risky)

              Fair. I think this is the most legitimate concern. Thankfully, over the last two years, I have yet to bang my head against a brick wall for reasons related to this. But I understand why others are more reluctant based on Fedora’s (less recent) track record.

              •  GolfNovemberUniform   ( @GolfNovemberUniform@lemmy.ml ) 
                2•2 months ago

                apt

                Apt can be improved with frontends and it doesn’t take 10 minutes to sync the repos.

                zypper

                Idk much about it but I heard it’s slow too.

                But I’m not sure if I understand. Is it because Anaconda does not walk you (explicitly) through all parts of the installation (at least by default)?

                Yes.

                And, instead, chooses to give the user an overview (at some point) in which the user is expected to go over each one of them by themselves.

                Yea even archinstall might be better than this design lol.

                less recent

                X11. Though I don’t remember if they decided to drop it before explicit sync was introduced for NVidia drivers or after.

                •  bsergay   ( @bsergay@discuss.online ) 
                  2•2 months ago

                  Apt can be improved with frontends

                  nala is indeed pretty cool.

                  Thank you for clarifying/confirming the parts related to how Fedora’s installation is confusing.

                  X11. Though I don’t remember if they decided to drop it before explicit sync was introduced for NVidia drivers or after.

                  Totally forgot about this one. Blame AMD 😛. Thank you for correcting me!

            •  bsergay   ( @bsergay@discuss.online ) 
              1•2 months ago

              Thank you for sharing your thoughts!

              Fedora’s tendency to default to (potentially) premature software, can definitely be a legit reason to prefer other distros instead.

              I’m a “(sweet) summer child” in that I’ve only been using Fedora for over two years now. Therefore, I haven’t experienced the commonly cited ‘shifts’ that have caused many issues to other users. Regardless, I do (somewhat) understand.

              Regarding wget2, I didn’t even know that was a thing. Thank you for mentioning it! I have yet to understand why or how Fedora unanimously agreed to push that change.

              To this day I notice that there is some skepticism with Btrfs, and I think it is because fedora also pushed it early.

              This, however, I can’t agree with. And perhaps you’re conflating matters. Btrfs was not ready when it was first supported. However, Fedora was not an early adopter. They only defaulted to it in 2020. By contrast, AFAIK openSUSE was the first to default it in 2014. Heck, the next year it was defaulted by SLE as well. By the time Fedora did the same, the severe issues and instabilities were already ironed out. So, I’d attribute the scepticism towards Btrfs as the community’s PTSD after many community members lost valuable data early in Btrfs’ lifetime.