On Tue, Aug 31, 2010 at 02:58:44PM -0700, K. Richard Pixley wrote: > On 20100831 14:46, Mike Fedyk wrote: > >There is little reason not to use duplicate metadata. Only small > >files (less than 2kb) get stored in the tree, so there should be no > >worries about images being duplicated without data duplication set at > >mkfs time. > My benchmarks show that for my kinds of data, btrfs is somewhat > slower than ext4, (which is slightly slower than ext3 which is > somewhat slower than ext2), when using the defaults, (ie, duplicate > metadata). > > It's a hair faster than ext2, (the fastest of the ext family), when > using singleton metadata. And ext2 isn't even crash resistant while > btrfs has snapshots. I'm really, really curious. Can you describe your data and your workload in detail? You mentioned "continuous builders"; is this some kind of tinderbox setup? - Ted -- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-btrfs" in the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
