Fedora Linux Support Community & Resources Center
  #1  
Old 11th January 2017, 01:31 AM
dd_wizard Offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Sep 2009
Posts: 1,954
linuxfedorafirefox
f2fs vs ext4 gnome-disks benchmarks

For those that read the unedited post, ignore it. The ext4 partition was a boot partition and much smaller than the f2fs partition. Here are benchmarks for btrfs, ext4, and f2fs version 1.7.0 on 10 GiB partitions. There's not that much difference.

dd_wizard
Attached Thumbnails
Click image for larger version

Name:	btrfs-test.png
Views:	61
Size:	88.2 KB
ID:	26884   Click image for larger version

Name:	ext4-test.png
Views:	55
Size:	87.4 KB
ID:	26885   Click image for larger version

Name:	f2fs-test.png
Views:	55
Size:	86.8 KB
ID:	26886  

Last edited by dd_wizard; 11th January 2017 at 01:58 AM. Reason: New benchmarks on same size partitions.
Reply With Quote
  #2  
Old 11th January 2017, 04:31 AM
lsatenstein Offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jun 2005
Location: Montreal, Que, Canada
Posts: 3,816
linuxfirefox
Re: f2fs vs ext4 gnome-disks benchmarks

Quote:
Originally Posted by dd_wizard View Post
For those that read the unedited post, ignore it. The ext4 partition was a boot partition and much smaller than the f2fs partition. Here are benchmarks for btrfs, ext4, and f2fs version 1.7.0 on 10 GiB partitions. There's not that much difference.

dd_wizard
From what I read, f2fs was specifically geared to SSDs. It is not targeting spinning disks.

XFS is supposedly better than ext4 for performance and recovery, Negative xfs problem is that you cannot shrink an over-allocated partition. Positive side, if the partition is too small, you can expand it.

EXT4 is a smidgit behind xfs in performance. When in doubt, go ext4.

BTRFS is getting positive reviews. The benchmarks were done on a spinning disk. It would be interesting to see the differences between the four for an 10 gig SSD partition. If there is an ssd test, dont forget fstrim between runs.
__________________
Leslie in Montreal

Interesting web sites list
http://forums.fedoraforum.org/showth...40#post1697840
Reply With Quote
  #3  
Old 11th January 2017, 04:44 AM
dd_wizard Offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Sep 2009
Posts: 1,954
linuxfedorafirefox
Re: f2fs vs ext4 gnome-disks benchmarks

Sorry for not mentioning it in the text of my post, but those tests were done on 10 GiB partitions on a Crucial MX200 SSD. It's shown on the attached graphs in the Device field. 530MB read speed, 450MB write speed, and 40-50 microsecond access times would be pretty amazing for a rotating disk.

dd_wizard
Reply With Quote
  #4  
Old 11th January 2017, 10:04 AM
antikythera Offline
Administrator
 
Join Date: Dec 2013
Location: United Kingdom
Posts: 3,652
windows_98_nt_2000chrome
Re: f2fs vs ext4 gnome-disks benchmarks

I use a Crucial MX300 525GB and it is ridiculously quick. I doubt as a user we'd register any performance difference between the file systems though. So I'll stick with the few tweaks for SSD and ext4 which my cross-platform backup software supports.
__________________
Download, Install and Share Fedora - Official ISO Torrents | Live ISO Respins containing post-release updates
Reply With Quote
  #5  
Old 11th January 2017, 03:59 PM
DBelton Offline
Administrator
 
Join Date: Aug 2009
Posts: 8,414
linuxfedorafirefox
Re: f2fs vs ext4 gnome-disks benchmarks

I tend to agree with antikythera. Most users would never notice a speed difference between filesystems unless they are running some really disk intensive applications such as fairly large databases, etc...

However, a user that does regular backups might notice it, but I would tend to lean towards 98% of users don't ever even back up their data.

I pretty much choose filesystems for reliability over speed, and currently ext4 pretty much is my default. I still don't believe btrfs is quite ready, although it is shaping up very nicely.
Reply With Quote
  #6  
Old 11th January 2017, 06:41 PM
lsatenstein Offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jun 2005
Location: Montreal, Que, Canada
Posts: 3,816
linuxfirefox
Re: f2fs vs ext4 gnome-disks benchmarks

This discussion pertains to SSDs, since the benchmarks were done on a SSD.

I followed up on all previous discussions about SSD's and obtained some additional advice from several sources. The recommendation was to verify the physical/logical sector sizes, and to allocate partitions on a physical sector boundary. My SSD uses 1k sectors, and that is my boundary. Other SSD's have a 4096 sector size.

To determine the best allocation, review the boundaries. The recommendation was to use gparted, and by clicking on the Partition tab, choose resize/move and verify the free space preceding your partition is zero, and that the allocation size is a multiple of your SSD's physical sector size. I just chose all my partitions outside of boot and uefi to be on a 4 k boundary and multiples of 4k.

A second recommendation is to look at running df
The df command will show the amount of ram in use for tmpdisk. If you have sufficient ram (4gig+) consider adding the following to the /etc/fstab

Code:
tmpfs   /tmp   tmpfs    nodev,nosuid,noatime,size=1G  0 0
in lieu of noatime, there was discussion of using relatime if you require last access time information. As I understand it, relatime keeps a cache of that access time info in memory and writes out updates in batches if it deems it has to. So, if some files are frequently accessed, the atime info will be held in that cache and only written out after a long pause in file accesses or on shutdown..

More info is available from many sources such as SUSE, Debian and best, I found a great amount of good information is from

I can't cross post, so perhaps my reply should follow Antikythera's SSD posting.

My own benchmarks are qualitative, I feel that my use of my SSD appears snappier given my adjustment for boundaries, and my use of tmpdisk for /tmp

Back to two feet on the ground. Given my empty SSD, I allocated a 10gig partition, ran a 10gig generator program to fill up that partition and then deleted the file followed by fstrim.
The rest of the tests were to fill the partition. (I wanted to ensure that each test began with the same internal SSD configuration)

I did the same tests for the btrfs, xfs, ext4 and f2fs. I also copied partition to partition (same disk) for each filesystem. I used defaults within /etc/fstab, since I read that relatime is now a default, unless noatime is specified.


My own benchmarks are qualitative, I feel that my use of my SSD appears snappier given my adjustment for boundaries, and my use of tmpdisk for /tmp from where I ran my generator program (4k output blocksize).

partition to partition for the copies were basically the same. f2fs was 1/2 second faster than xfs (unlike your results in panel 3). xfs may be faster than ext4. All these tests are none scientific. I would have to repeat the tests 19 times to obtain a 5% confidence interval. My system dates from 2009, has 8gigs ram (ddr2), and an asus p5q motherboard.
__________________
Leslie in Montreal

Interesting web sites list
http://forums.fedoraforum.org/showth...40#post1697840

Last edited by lsatenstein; 12th January 2017 at 03:07 AM. Reason: more pertenant information
Reply With Quote
Reply

Tags
benchmarks, ext4, f2fs, gnomedisks

Thread Tools Search this Thread
Search this Thread:

Advanced Search
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off

Forum Jump

Similar Threads
Thread Thread Starter Forum Replies Last Post
Formatting an external backup drive, xfs, btrfs,ext4 or f2fs lsatenstein Wibble 5 15th May 2016 08:35 AM
Benchmark ext4 vs f2fs lsatenstein Linux Chat 13 28th March 2016 06:13 PM
Spinning down disk APM value Gnome-disks aurabindo Using Fedora 4 2nd July 2013 05:56 PM
simple benchmarks gnome 3 bonedome Fedora Focus 6 24th March 2011 01:19 AM
AMD vs. PPC vs. Intel Benchmarks? BMillikan Fedora Focus 15 9th July 2005 01:07 AM


Current GMT-time: 12:02 (Tuesday, 28-03-2017)

TopSubscribe to XML RSS for all Threads in all ForumsFedoraForumDotOrg Archive
logo

All trademarks, and forum posts in this site are property of their respective owner(s).
FedoraForum.org is privately owned and is not directly sponsored by the Fedora Project or Red Hat, Inc.

Privacy Policy | Term of Use | Posting Guidelines | Archive | Contact Us | Founding Members

Powered by vBulletin® Copyright ©2000 - 2012, vBulletin Solutions, Inc.

FedoraForum is Powered by RedHat