So please enlighten me, where is btrfs better and where is it worse or just significantly different than ZFS. The 3TB HDD are ext4. BTRFS was clearly in the lead when considering Documents – even better than ZFS with deduplication. Ext4 te permite crear un máximo de 232 archivos. 0 Intel Skylake 16384MB Samsung SSD 950 PRO 256GB LLVMpipe Realtek ALC1150 Intel Connection Ubuntu 16. Actually, Btrfs might have the upper hand there even, if zstd filesystem compression is used. Pro: supported by all distro's, commercial and not, and based on ext3, so it's widely tested, stable and proven. This was done from an AMD Ryzen Threadripper 2990WX system with ASUS ROG ZENITH EXTREME motherboard, 4 x 8GB DDR4-3200 memory, and. 2. Você pode então configurar a aplicação de cotas usando uma opção de montagem. BtrFS looked promising, but last I checked it still couldn't be trusted in RAID modes. F2FS vs. 1. F2FS vs. XFS back in the 2. ZFS likes eating RAM. 356 Btrfs—short for "B-Tree File System" and frequently pronounced "butter" or "butter eff ess"—is the most advanced filesystem present in the mainline Linux kernel. ran defragment utility to compress all existing files. Compared to ext4, XFS has unlimited inode allocation, advanced allocation hinting (if you need it) and, in recent version, reflink support (but they need to be explicitly enabled in. 6,861. Each of the five file-systems were tested on the same NVM Express SSD from the Linux 4. Ext4 specially without a journal and XFS are both extremely fast. 17現在、Ext4と比べ特にBtrfsが遅かったりはしない。SSD上の動作であればむしろ有利なくらいだ。 つまり、Ext4のほうが速く、Btrfsが遅いカーネルもある。 例を示そう。 Linux5. Block sub-allocation and Tail packing. Otherwise use BTRFS. ZFS combines a filesystem and volume manager. Btrfs vs Ext4. A daily snapshot of Ubuntu 19. However, BTRFS had significantly better performance with small files than EXT4. Reasons why I avoided btrfs:Increased Performance of ext4 vs. ZFS ain't bad, but this whole btrfs data loss myth needs to stop. ago. While looking at the filesystem options it seems like BTRFS is a lot more stable than it was the last time I had to install arch so now I am seriously considering using it. Without going too technical, if you want to have easy system backups so that you can revert to if an update breaks the system, then btrfs. だが、Linux 5. Four years later, Rodeh et al. F2FS vs. Just EXT4, yes. My problem is that in some games when DXVK is running in Linux, stutters occur, although there are no such problems on Windows. Rep: XFS has unbalanced performance, but in the best use case blows away many other formats. Compared to classic RAID1, modern FS have two other advantages: - RAID1 is whole device. So if you have a SSD and care about the wear of that then. 3. EXT4 VS BTRFS. Even after then I was able to transfer data out of the filesystem. XFS is very well established and changing slowly, and the same can be said for EXT4. Si su aplicación falla con números de inodo grandes, monte el sistema de archivos XFS con la opción -o inode32 para imponer números de inodo inferiores a 232. That was many years ago, perhaps when btrfs was less ready. Try it now. btrfs is da bomb yo. 8. ext4 and xfs are probably the best fs' to lay over a single disk (and even on raid device if you're familiar with mdraid). Yeah I think EXT4 and BTRFS are the way to go for everyone, unless you have specific other needs. ZFS ain't bad, but this whole btrfs data loss myth needs to stop. I've used EX4, XFS, EXT4+LVM and now I'm under BTRFS, and I can tell you, TF2, CSGO, Factorio, KSP, etc, all perform the same under all of them. Although Btrfs still has a journal-like log tree, it is only used to speed-up fdatasync/fsync. Example: Dropbox is hard-coded to use ext4, so will refuse to work on ZFS and BTRFS. SSD Optimization. But not enough users follow the guide on and instead do stuff that actually makes the system worse. ext4. . This is what I ended up doing; BTRFS for operating system partition and ext4 for games. As well as ext4. 1-based Bcachefs-dev kernel. For a consumer it depends a little on what your expectations are. And xfs. showed that at the time the performance for the RAID setup was not able to compete with ext4 and ZFS. Quota journaling: This avoids the need for lengthy quota consistency checks after a crash. The check task is involves reading roughly 2000 small files in their entirety and performing some processor intensive tasks on them. ^ Microsoft first introduced FAT32 in MS-DOS 7. Note that everything with LVM is at the block level which has major limitations. brown2green. Snapshots. 04 Disco Dingo was running on the Threadripper setup while using the Linux Git kernel from the mainline PPA. . My recommendation of that list would be XFS. EXT4 Vs XFS. However, BTRFS had significantly better performance with small files than EXT4. The first command looks like this: dd if=/dev/zero of=file-sparse bs=1 count=0 seek=2G. Zu diesen gehören eine integrierte RAID-Funktionalität, ein inkludierter Volume Manager und die Unterstützung von Dateisystemen bis 16EiB. B：EXT3性能最好，如果软件大量的随机寻址的话这个文件系统性能更好. Better for gaming, my money is on ZFS if you have extra RAM to spare and restrict the cache size. the COW which saves alot of space and increases the speed. Written by Michael Larabel in Storage on 20 January 2018. It also wasn't formatted with -m finobt=1 which is a game-changer for XFS performance with small files and heavy metadata updates. Phoronix: Linux 4. 1. Using: - A full partition in a single 1TB or 2TB NVMe SSD. - Tạo và lưu trữ snapshot. Here are the major feature of BTFS over ext4. F2FS vs. Regarding boot drives : Use enterprise grade SSDs, do not use low budget commercial grade equipment. I had no bad experience myself with btrfs so far, but still have not tried it with anything more complex than raid1 over a long time and while I assume many horror stories out there are just deprecated as btrfs keeps improving, it can do a lot more than ext4. 84 nvme drives split up into a small ext4 volume and the rest is btrfs. As cotas XFS não são uma opção remountable. To have best performance use noatime mount option, and I also recommend to use mount option. The only benefit of btrfs that I could find was marginally easier setup and the software license. 6. Linux vs. Btrfs, EXT4, F2FS, and XFS were tested in their out-of-the-box state / default mount options. BTRFS solves all the problems I had so far: supports online resizing - both extending and shrinking. Each of the tested file-systems were carried out with the default mount options in an out-of-the-box manner. Support for large file sizes - The Ext4 supports a single file size of up to 16 TiB ( Tebibytes ) whereas XFS supports a max file size of up to 8 exbibytes. It's the fastest option bar none if you have enough RAM. FUSE-based file systems. EXT4 is very low-hassle, normal journaled filesystem. F2FS vs. Ext4 se basa en una tecnología más antigua, por lo que carece de las características modernas del sistema de archivos que se encuentran en sistemas como E2FS y BtrFS. For the adventurous: you can define block devices on btrfs and use ext4 on those block devices (ext4 on btrfs). Btrfs, EXT4, F2FS, and XFS were tested in their out-of-the-box state / default mount options. The only realistic benchmark is the one done on a real application in real conditions. - Bảo vệ dữ liệu. Abstract and Figures. 10. but rather comparable to the usage of md-raid underneath or LVM. 1 Like. There’s very little difference between EXT4 and XFS, both in total throughput and behavior over time. The NTFS support was powered by FUSE. Guess it depends on the scenario. ReiserFS is another filesystem common to linux systems, but with some ongoing codebase issues whereby it periodically tries to kill your wife. In Windows NTFS is used, while in Mac OS it is HFS, perhaps these will sound familiar to you, especially the typical FAT or its variants for. Back when Bcachefs debuted in 2015 I ran some initial. Main features: Data protection features, including snapshot, replication, and point-in-time recovery. XFS A number of Phoronix readers have been asking about some fresh file-system comparisons on recent kernels. 和 ext4 和 XFS 一起使用的工具比较 法律通告 Settings Close. So…. This is the first time that the new EXT4 and Btrfs and NILFS2 filesystems have been directly compared when it comes to their disk performance though the results may surprise. Both Btrfs and ZFS offer built-in RAID support, but their implementations differ. ago. I am getting too many input/output errors with my 3TB HDD NTFS hard disk for main files. It can hold up to 1 billion terabytes of data. ZFS vs EXT4 vs BTRFS file systems File systems like ZFS, EXT4, and BTRFS may seem strange or. Or btrfs, which is making some serious headway again with it becoming the default filesystem for Fedora. El sistema de archivos es mayor de 2 TiB con inodos de 512 bytes. 4TB HDD formatted as NTFS for backuping all other three hard disks. . both are great choices, but for me the more generally useful choice is BTRFS. Here is a quote from RHEL regarding XFS vs ext4. Offizieller Beitrag. For example, in the case of Btrfs, SATA SSDs are showing around a 10%. The Ext4 File System. ^ Microsoft first introduced FAT32 in MS-DOS 7. Now, lot of development efforts are pushed to Btrfs development and most probably it will become next generation default FS for Linux, a successor of EXT4. EXT4 is better for small files and day to day use. Ext4 and Btrfs Filesystems are pretty much well known for their performance in Linux environments. Moreover, the ext4 is more beneficial when the. ext4 -fyv /dev/sdXX # man btrfs-convert (read it!) # btrfs-convert /dev/sdXX. I remember being on ext4 using Timeshift but it only supports rsync–so slow. The maximum partition size of a btrfs file system is 16 exbibytes, and the maximum file size is also 16 exbibytes. . A file system controls where, how, and when data is stored and retrieved from a storage device. In practice, I don't consider the Btrfs slowdown really relevant for desktop usage on an SSD, VM performance aside. ext4 is certainly is much more stable than btrfs. ZFS is faster than ext4, and is a great filesystem candidate for boot partitions! I would go with ZFS, and not look back. Each of the five file-systems were tested on the same NVM Express SSD from the Linux 4. EXT4 lacks more robust features but is stable and well-supported on all Linux operating systems. Definitely ext4. The answer is zfs. It's fine otherwise, but if you ever think you might want to shrink your partition, use ext4 or btrfs instead. In a significant data corruption, Ext2 and Ext3 file systems are more possible and easy to recover data due to their data redundancy compared with Ext4. Not only does both file systems feature a more robust data assurances then XFS (the mature fsck for Ext4 and checksums and data. BTRFS is good for rotational drives too, but it's still not fully mature and I'm hesitant to recommend it because of previous issues with data. EXT4 is functional and is considered more stable. For storage, XFS is great and. I'd say ext, because it is faster, and because you asking means, that you don't know how to use btrfs features, otherwise the choice is obvious: need snapshots -> btrfs, need reflinks -> XFS, default -> ext4. It supports all. A daily snapshot of Ubuntu 19. 29 release of the Linux kernel. The only time there were issues was when my RAM sticks went bad and btrfs detected it and put my FS into read-only mode to prevent corruption. That one is solid and mature. XFS and ext4 are probably where I'd look for a single disk hard drive. Though not as large of a difference when comparing to an SD card. When space gets low, Btrfs automatically expands the volume in chunks of roughly 1 GB. As far as I know, the 4k block size is important for such webgui, it makes it faster to open sites (for ex. Distribution of one file system to several devices. XFS 和 ext4 的比较. . both have hidden sharp edges, work differently, and have different design philosophies in terms of the command line tools etc. my rough draft would be to offer an advanced option for the mount points (i. Otherwise it's sort of figuring out what features you want to drop. Você deve ativar as cotas na montagem inicial. 0 SSD drive used was a 250GB Samsung 850 PRO solid-state drive connected both via SATA. 3 with zfs-2. Let’s go through the different features of the two filesystems. However, Ext3 lacks advanced file system features like extent blocking mapping, dynamic allocation inode, and defragmentation. There was a higher risk than upon disconnection or loss of power than some of the files are truncated. ZFS on FreeBSD may be faster than BTRFS on Linux. But, as always, your specific use case affects this greatly, and there are corner cases where any of. While options like XFS and ZFS aren’t nearly as famous, there are certain cases where you should consider making them the file system of choice. Various benchmarks have concluded that the actual ext4 file system can perform a variety of read-write operations faster than an NTFS partition. Btrfs was 107% faster in initial read scores and 24% faster in initial write scores. I have fsck enabled via fstab and it checked the fs at boot (Last checked: Thu Nov 4 07:58:57 2021) which maybe took 5 - 10 minutes, did not stop exact time though. For example btrfs supports transparent file compression. 6 Comments With FS-Mark there was a very noticeable drop with the XFS file-system with KPTI and Retpoline enabled while EXT4 saw the second largest drop while Btrfs and. As far as I know (please someone correct me), ZFS needs equally sized drives to work, BTRFS can handle differently sized drives. The Ext4 file system is a very old file system and it has been used on the Linux operating system for a long, long time. Difference between Ext4 vs Btrfs filesystems on Linux. ext4,xfs,btrfs,zfsでベンチマークしてます。. Es un sistema de archivos actualizado y también fiable. However ZFS does come at one major downside, it needs more resources in just about every way one can imagine, ZFS is best with more disks, more RAM, more CPU, more Bandwidth, more SSD’s for caching…. The only time there were issues was when my RAM sticks went bad and btrfs detected it and put my FS into read-only mode to prevent corruption. XFS is better larger files and long-term maintaince and stability. I have 6 disks so I have created 3 logical disks, 2 SSDs each - just for testing. A continuación, os vamos a explicar brevemente las principales características de EXT4 y de Btrfs. This article provides a detailed comparison of XFS vs btrfs to help you determine which file system is a better fit for your use case. Allerdings hatte BTRFS eine deutlich bessere Leistung bei kleinen Dateien als EXT4. I know the latest versions do not setup /home in a separate partition anymore but as a btrfs subvolume instead. So if you are after the most speed for the buck and if your NAS is already doing RAID 5 or more, you could go for Ext4. For a future article will be a look at non-mainlined file-systems,. I have hard reset my machines running XFS and not once did I have any problems or need to give the partition the "spank of life" if you will. File-systems tested on the NVMe SSD included Btrfs, EXT4, F2FS, XFS, and NTFS. Ext3, or Ext4) to the Btrfs file system using the btrfs-convert tool. . The BTRFS RAID is not difficult at all to create or problematic, but up until now, OMV does not support BTRFS RAID creation or management through the webGUI, so you have to use the terminal. Its not faster or more stable then the other two. The Btrfs filesystem supports read-only and writable snapshots of the file. Ahh…zfs is older than both ext4 and btrfs being released in 2006. Recommended for general use. All of these Linux. In my second round I made setups with btrfs on the nvme SSD and luks+btrfs on 2TB HDD as RAID1. Under Compile Bench, EXT4 was the fastest on all three drives followed by a mix of XFS and F2FS. This includes workload that creates or deletes large numbers of small files in a single thread. I've seen benchmarks (eg: this one) that put btrfs considerably slower than ext4. We also provide useful. Btrfs El sistema de archivos Btrfs nació como sucesor natural de EXT4, su objetivo es sustituirlo eliminando el mayor número de sus limitaciones, sobre todo lo referido al tamaño. The PostgreSQL database server ran well particularly on EXT4 and XFS while F2FS on the USB 3. Comparison of archive formats. ZoL Performance, Ubuntu ZFS On Linux Reference Storage : 2019-04-24: Linux 5. WD & Windows vs. For a single disk, both are good options. It. btrfs 可以支援 snapshot, 但 ext4 不行, 如果一開始就採用 ext4, 日後如果要使用 snapshot 功能, 必須將 NAS 的資料備份出來, 重新 format 成 btrfs 格式. I was using NTFS due to compatibility. You either copy everything twice or not. The total throughput is better than with ZFS (40k vs 60k), but the jitter is more severe. For storage, XFS is great and sometimes has higher performance than EXT4. An efficient file system is necessary for everyday system processes. Puedes crear hasta 264 archivos en un sistema Btrfs. XFS, EXT4, and BTRFS are file systems commonly used in Linux-based operating systems. Also I've thought about btrfs again. . 8 snapshot as of last week. ZFS is great but heavy/complex, and lack of block pointer rewrite can be painful. Comparison of file archivers. EXT4 and XFS show similarities in some features. OpenSUSE hiện sử dụng btrfs làm tùy chọn mặc định cho phân vùng /root, nơi đặt hệ điều hành. EXT4 is very low-hassle, normal journaled filesystem. EXT4 had the best speed at 58MB/s while Btrfs came in slightly behind that at 52MB/s and then ZFS came in at 46MB/s. 0 mainline kernel and using the stock mount options. Installing and booting with BTRFS has its advantages too. However, to be honest, it’s not the best Linux file system comparing to other Linux file systems. Btrfs trails the other options for a database in terms of latency and throughput. Tbh, it depends on game by game basis Team Fortress 2 will go as low as nearly 50%, same for KSP. Btrfs is one of the most popular newly created file systems, and was. 8ではPhoronixのテストの結果ではXFSが非常に速く、Ext4が遅い。 Una vez que hemos conocido las principales características de EXT4, vamos a hablar sobre Btrfs, el que se conoce como sucesor natural del sistema de archivos EXT4. ago. XFS is more and more mature than Btrfs, but. That bug apart, any delayed allocation filesystem (ext4 and btrfs included) will lose a significant number or un-synched data in case of uncontrolled poweroff. jkool702. Same could be said of reads, but if you have a TON of memory in the server that's greatly mitigated and work well. 1. Ext4 provides more flexibility in terms of data storage. BtrFS is still very experimental and is not recommended for a production server or desktop environment. The XFS filesystem is the default filesystem in RHEL, CentOS, and other RHEL-distros such as Oracle Linux, Rocky Linux, and AlmaLinux. Personally I run btrfs on all my Linux devices, some of them with half-decade old installations of Arch and they've all performed admirably. BTRFS improves file addressing capacity to 16 EiB and volume sizes up to 16 EiB, just like ZFS. Ext4 vs ext3. EXT4 vs. also XFS has been recommended by many for MySQL/MariaDB for some time. Now today I had a power outage on our office server and I discovered that one file on the JFS volume has been completely corrupted. Reviews of EXT4, EXT3, XFS, BTRFS, and ZFS. In the end I use ext4 as trustworthy frontend, and btrfs as a unreliable backup. This can take anywhere from 10 minutes to even hours, depending on the partition size and whether you have a rotational or solid-state hard drive. 3. This is because BTRFS is optimized for handling small files, while EXT4 can struggle with multiple small files due to its delayed allocation. XFS does not require extensive reading. 2. Pros: Individual file size: 16GB to 2TB. a lot of btrfs' perception of 'breaking' is actually due to checksums (correctly) finding fault on a users data and (correctly) not allowing mounting of the filesystem until it's fixed. It's a 64-bit, journaling filesystem that has been built into the Linux. NT-based Windows did not have any support for FAT32 up to. Considering that btrfs will be able to span over multiple hard drives, it's a good thing that it supports 16 times more drive space than ext4. It was also during a power outage, and yes I should have had that. Regarding filesystems. First up was the SQLite embedded SQL database library test. No swap because 16GB RAM is enough for me. However, when we review EXT4 vs BTRFS, here’s the downside: BTRFS has disk and volume management built-in, while EXT4 is a “pure filesystem”. at least as much as ext4 (which isn’t all that trusted by SUSE). As well as btrfs. 7 star rating. On the other hand, for Linux/Unix-based devices, it might be a bit of a challenge choosing one among many options. btrfs was slower and had reliability problems. When running PostMark, ZFS came out far ahead of the UFS file-systems being more than ten times faster than. To be clear, I am using RAID0 with two SSDs with strip size of 256Kb. So now I can boot up into a snapshot. 5. has built-in support for snapshots - useful for both backups and “testing out” scripts. Probably those edge cases are not visible on an external USB hard drive, could be visible with external SSDs on a USB3. Small to Medium Enterprises: While ext3 suffices for businesses with modest data needs, scalability visionaries would do well considering ext4. I'd stick with safer file systems like XFS, JFS, EXT4, or imported ZFSOnLinux. It's a 64-bit, journaling filesystem that has been built into the Linux kernel since 2001 and offers high performance for large filesystems and high degrees of concurrency (i. Ext4 and XFS are both great for "I need a filesystem, to store files, on this drive". But EXT4 is mature, rock solid, and completely reliable, and the standard for most of the linux world. Được tích hợp vô hệ thống DSM Synology , do NAS có hiệu xuất làm việc cao trong vấn đề lưu trữ và khôi phục, Btrfs hoạt động trên NAS. That is according to my quick read of various Phoronix tests. (ext4 for general use, xfs for MythTV) On the other hand, I lost an entire filesystem with btrfs - the utilities couldn't identify anything on the (raid-1) drives as btrfs, it wasn't just corrupted, it went missing. to get a significantly faster result than xfs. Enjoy! TSU. When I use ext4 the 4k speed is 5-7 MB/s. ago. Btrfs El sistema de archivos Btrfs nació como sucesor natural de EXT4, su objetivo es sustituirlo eliminando el mayor número de sus limitaciones, sobre todo lo referido al tamaño. 3. Guys, the main reason why I want to use btrfs is way better speed in/at/on 4k block size. If you are running a more stable system like Dabian based Linux EXT4 is a better choice because it's faster file system but not as easy to revert. BTRFS RAID1 is stable as far as I know, BTRFS RAID5 not so much. A. Ext4 file system is an ideal choice. Main features include: Support Larger filesystem - XfS support file system size upto 1PiB whereas Ext4 support up to 50TiB. For single disks over 4T, I would consider xfs over zfs or ext4. Here, you can use either command: dd, or truncate. Performance: Ext4 performs better in everyday tasks and is faster for small file writes. It has been tried and tested, it is no doubt a solid and stable filesystem. But unless you intend to use these features, and know how to use them, they are useless. Btrfs lacks maturity and stability at the time of this writing but is more feature-rich compared to EXT4. BTRFS hatte auch etwas höhere Latenz als EXT4, was bedeutet, dass es länger dauerte, bis Dateien auf dem Dateisystem zugegriffen werden konnten. 0 X. For btrfs you have to do most from CLI. Btrfs would be adding features you most likely don't need. data, so it's possible to only keep the metadata with redundancy ("dup" is the default BTRFS behaviour on HDDs). Btrfs removes duplicate data from disk directly while Ext4 cannot do that, ext4. If, for example, most your data writes are file add (like storing your camera roll, your movie collection,etc), btrfs snapshots will use virtually no extra space. The Ext4 File System. In the time since I chose ext4 for these systems, btrfs seems to have come a long way, so the choice may be harder today. For example, xfs cannot shrink. Plus, XFS is baked in with most Linux distributions so you get that added bonus To answer your question, however, if ext4 and btrfs were the only two filesystems, I would choose ext4 because btrfs has been making headlines about courrpting people's data and I've used ext4 with no issue. My biggest issue with any file system other than EXT4 is that a lot of linux programs are built and tested on EXT4. For a consumer it depends a little on what your expectations are. ZFS isn't native to Linux, nor is it GPL compatible, but it works fairly well and is a stable file system. After conversion I: enabled compression. (2013) compared the performance of Btrfs against XFS and ext4. Next we will need to rebuild grub, first mount the EFI folder (in our case its /dev/sda1) mount -t auto /dev/sda1 /efi. XFS is a robust and mature 64-bit journaling file system that supports very large files and file systems on a single host. For the most. So for a large video collection, I think I will stick with ext4 still. This includes workload that creates or deletes large numbers of small files in a single thread. 5 inch SSDs, which from what I understand, should work in a SAS chassis. Does that mean that if I'm using btrfs snapshots, it will not save parity data for any snapshots other than the current state of the drive, that it will only save parity data for one snapshot other than the current state of the drive, or that it will fail entirely?Generally, would go with btrfs. It uses a default file system for Linux distribution, including Debian and Ubuntu. EXT4 is just a file system, as NTFS is - it doesn't really do anything for a NAS and would require either hardware or software to add some flavor. checksum verification on each file. could go with btrfs even though it's still in beta and not recommended for production yet. XFS vs. Ext4 file systems. Copy. Things like snapshots, copy-on-write, checksums and more. It's stable and time-proven. ext4 or XFS are otherwise good options if you back up your config. With the noatime option, the access timestamps on the filesystem are not updated. 4 EXT4 / XFS / Btrfs RAID Performance On Four HDDs Storage : 2019-12-28: Benchmarking The Experimental Bcachefs File-System Against Btrfs, EXT4, F2FS, XFS & ZFS Storage : 2019-06-25: Optane SSD RAID Performance With ZFS On Linux, EXT4, XFS, Btrfs, F2FS Storage : 2019-06-20: Linux 5. 5. For anything with higher capability, XFS tends to be faster. - Tạo và lưu trữ snapshot. However, I was using the openSUSE's default partition layout, which is btrfs for / and xfs for /home. Though EXT4 has few strong capabilities, it is reliable and well-maintained across all Linux operating systems. They both use delayed allocation to achieve file. Considering switching from a mixture of XFS and ext4, but only to Tux3 once that's merged. Each of the tested file-systems were carried out with the default mount options in an out-of-the-box manner. But. I switched from ext4 to btrfs a couple of years ago. Page 2 of 2. BTRFS系统性能最差，下面是去掉该系统其它3种的对比. Then later, I was actually able to convert that from btrfs-raid10. You can easily backup each distro without filling your disk using snapshots. The benchmark I linked attributes this to copy-on-write behaviour of btrfs. ”. Maybe adding Btrfs compression would be negligible outside of storage benchmarks. • 3 mo. On that list, only xfs is older. Btrfs is the recommended file system to use in most scenarios. Stackable file. Pro: supported by all distro's, commercial and not, and based on ext3, so it's widely tested, stable and proven. I've also heard that LVM snapshots can. Btrfs is slower, especially on non-SSDs, because of CoW, but has a whole lot more going on under the hood in way of features and data integrity. For BTRFS, the overall throughput is fairly low (~30k tps), while the jitter is somewhat better and worse than for EXT4/XFS at the same time. This is why XFS might be a great candidate for an SSD. File-systems tested on the NVMe SSD included Btrfs, EXT4, F2FS, XFS, and NTFS. BTRFS subvolumes and the way a distro like Opensuse handles it, by using subvolumes and snapshotting on upgrades, is really nice. , power failure) could be acceptable. What do I use? ext4.