On 2/9/2016 1:13 PM, Martin wrote:
How does btrfs compare to f2fs for use on (128GByte) USB memory sticks?
Particularly for wearing out certain storage blocks?
Does btrfs heavily use particular storage blocks that will prematurely
"wear out"?
(That is, could the whole 128GBytes be lost due to one 4kByte block
having been re-written excessively too many times due to a fixed
repeatedly used filesystem block?)
Any other comparisons/thoughts for btrfs vs f2fs?
Copy-on-write (CoW) designs tend naturally to work well with flash
media. F2fs is *specifically* designed to work well with flash, whereas
for btrfs it is a natural consequence of the copy-on-write design. With
both filesystems, if you randomly generate a 1GB file and delete it 1000
times, onto a 1TB flash, you are *very* likely to get exactly one write
to *every* block on the flash (possibly two writes to <1% of the blocks)
rather than, as would be the case with non-CoW filesystems, 1000 writes
to a small chunk of blocks.
I haven't found much reference or comparison information online wrt wear
leveling - mostly performance benchmarks that don't really address your
request. Personally I will likely never bother with f2fs unless I
somehow end up working on a project requiring relatively small storage
in Flash (as that is what f2fs was designed for).
If someone can provide or link to some proper comparison data, that
would be nice. :)
--
__________
Brendan Hide
http://swiftspirit.co.za/
http://www.webafrica.co.za/?AFF1E97
--
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
