About a week ago Debian 8 installed with full disk encryption, and even on the new btrfs file system. Out of curiosity, Google found an article with btrfs speed tests. And this article says, they say, this FS is rarely superior in ext4 speed.
But he did not believe the article and decided to conduct tests himself. :) On the old hdd sata 1 drive of my laptop there are two physical partitions. The first is boot, the second is a large partition for encryption with lvm inside.
Two sections are tested: / home with the btrfs file system and / mnt / x with the ext4 file system.
First test using hdparm.
root @ home: ~ # hdparm -t / dev / asd / home / dev / asd / home: Timing buffered disk reads: 110 MB in 3.00 seconds = 36.63 MB / sec root @ home: ~ # hdparm -t / dev / asd / x / dev / asd / x: Timing buffered disk reads: 78 MB in 3.04 seconds = 25.62 MB / sec
As you can see, the btrfs section is clearly faster. :)
The second test was performed by the seeker utility (it is not in the Debian repositories). I read that her tests are more objective than hdparm. And here is the result:
root @ home: ~ # ./seeker / dev / asd / home Seeker v2.0, 2007-01-15, http://www.linuxinsight.com/how_fast_is_your_disk.html Benchmarking / dev / asd / home [46128MB], wait 30 seconds ............................. Results: 64 seeks / second, 15.52 ms random access time root @ home: ~ # ./seeker / dev / asd / x Seeker v2.0, 2007-01-15, http://www.linuxinsight.com/how_fast_is_your_disk.html Benchmarking / dev / asd / x [10240MB], wait 30 seconds .............................. Results: 79 seeks / second, 12.52 ms random access time
Here, too, the btrfs partition is a bit faster than with ext4.
Of course, one cannot completely trust such improvised tests. Perhaps, on another disk and without encryption, the results would be different. But I definitely like the new FS. :) In addition to speed, the ability to create snapshots, resize without unmounting (but also taking into account the lvm:) ...
(No ratings yet) 
Loading...