[HN Gopher] Some statistics about BTRFS compression
___________________________________________________________________
Some statistics about BTRFS compression
Author : zdw
Score : 30 points
Date : 2022-09-21 18:14 UTC (4 hours ago)
(HTM) web link (dataswamp.org)
(TXT) w3m dump (dataswamp.org)
| Krisjohn wrote:
| btrfs is a horrible mess that will likely lose your data. For the
| few production systems we implemented it on, every single normal
| failure that other file systems can recover from had resulted in
| complete loss. We've had to implement a project to rebuild all
| systems that used btrfs in order to remove it.
| chasil wrote:
| Ars Technica has acknowledged that stability has been achieved
| for single-disk filesystems. I've had no complaints, and the
| Fedora community has not reported major problems that I have
| heard.
|
| "So, we'll repeat this once more: as a single-disk filesystem,
| btrfs has been stable and for the most part performant for
| years."
|
| https://arstechnica.com/gadgets/2021/09/examining-btrfs-linu...
| yjftsjthsd-h wrote:
| I dunno, I understand that the worst problems are in RAID,
| but it's only been a few years (<5y) since I lost 2 root
| filesystems to BTRFS on a laptop with just the one disk. I'm
| going to stay skeptical for a bit longer, although Fedora
| adopting it as a default does give me some hope that it'll at
| least get wider testing now.
| zionic wrote:
| >btrfs is a horrible mess that will likely lose your data.
|
| Meanwhile the bazillion petabytes on the world's synology NAS
| run fine, and are BTRFS.
| yjftsjthsd-h wrote:
| Isn't synology running it hybridized with their own
| proprietary storage layer?
| 5e92cb50239222b wrote:
| btrfs has had support for changing the compression level for some
| years.
|
| I've been using zstd:2 (the default is 3), it compresses my data
| close to what zlib does while being pretty light on CPU.
|
| https://docs.google.com/spreadsheets/d/1x9-3OQF4ev1fOCrYuYWt...
| (not mine)
|
| https://linuxreviews.org/Comparison_of_Compression_Algorithm...
|
| Also note that btrfs compression works on 128 KiB chunks and if
| you work with small files a lot (frontend work, etc), it may
| actually increase your SSD wear. I've seen this in practice.
| demindiro wrote:
| Stats for my desktop PC (ZFS with LZ4):
| david@pc1:~$ /sbin/zfs get compressratio rpool tank NAME
| PROPERTY VALUE SOURCE rpool compressratio 1.93x -
| tank compressratio 1.20x -
|
| rpool contains the root filesystem and my home directory. tank
| contains movies, music, recordings and backups.
| sleepycatgirl wrote:
| Mood It is impressive how much space you can save, with minimum
| CPU cost (It is there, but modern CPUs are so fast, well.. its
| okay)
|
| I run NixOS, and on /nix/store itself, i get 2.32x
| compressratio :D
| PaulKeeble wrote:
| I use ZFS with LZ4 compression on my storage pool for NAS
| purposes, so its mostly music, movies and game stuff and it has
| an impressive 1.00x compression ratio, its not saved even 1%.
| soupbowl wrote:
| If compression was enabled after the data was written it will
| not be compressed until the data is written again. Just some
| info not sure if it applies to your compression level situation
| or not.
| masklinn wrote:
| Seems unsurprising, as your data is already compressed.
|
| I would have expected some savings from games but mayhaps not
| from lz4. Music and movies though, if lz4 had significant
| savings to provide these would have long been added to the
| media formats (likely in a more specialised and effective or
| efficient form).
| heywire wrote:
| Only somewhat related: My personal laptop is an older Dell
| Latitude 7370 (m7-6Y75) running Fedora 36. I had to reinstall
| using ext4 due to the performance impact of the default btrfs w/
| compression. I was surprised at the difference it made. My disk
| throughput was nearly half.
___________________________________________________________________
(page generated 2022-09-21 23:01 UTC)