I think the reviews should also include the social aspect of these filesystems...
There is and have been many promising and exciting FS to replace the old boring ones, but for storage you not only want to avoid technical issues but also maintainer(s) drama...
> CI runs use loop devices on shared ephemeral VMs (one VM per filesystem): compare shapes and ratios, not absolute MB/s. Each job records a host-calibration anchor — see the table.
I think if you're not using baremetal for such tests, it's likely that the results are simply not comparable at all? What if another tenant is also using the disk?
It's a fair point but it's also possible the person running the tests has a dedicated test hypervisor for this , so that different configurations of filesystems and VMs can be created and destroyed quickly in an automated manner.
If it's something as simple as a KVM hypervisor that only runs 1 test VM at a time (with no other load from anything else other than the basic systemd daemons, ssh daemon etc running on the hypervisor), the results could be very close to bare metal.
I can see it being very time consuming and annoying to do repeated manual bare metal OS installs and new partitioning/filesystem creation for such a large variety of tests.
The author does also say that performance isn't really the main thing but rather, data integrity:
> I can see it being very time consuming and annoying to do repeated manual bare metal OS installs.
Well don't do that then. There's lots of other options. Probably the simplest is a single bare metal install on a simple filesystem on one device. run the filesystems under test on other storage dedicated to testing.
You could also boot into a network install and use local storage exclusively for testing.
Yes exactly. The issueThe epherrality of the VMs isn't an issue, it's the _shared_ part that's the concern here. Going by the fact that the kernel is listed as "kernel 7.0.0-1012-azure" I feel like it's a fair risk that there may have been noisy neighbours.
In this case, given that the author's own disclaimer (above) already disclaims the numeric readings, I'm not sure how it's possible to make any inference on "shapes and ratios" derived from the numeric readings.
So two filesystems that are essentially shunned from the Linux kernel and permanent second-class citizens, and one that was removed from Red Hat and has a questionable history of reliability. Oh boy which do I choose?
What is md-raid10 doing that is so much worse than lvm-raid10? In terms of "I/O" and "responsiveness." It's not really obvious to me from either the linked page or https://github.com/fenio/modern-fs-benchmark . In principle they should be similar?
That might be the best thing happened to the project since now development can happen at its own pace without the clicky bait influencers.
In fact they delivered the erasure coding for parity raid back in march this year.
The thing is that as soon as you seriously give a chance to Bcachefs you see how good it is. I can only tell you that mixing different device tiers and having a per-file/directory replication setting is a god send specially in these times where storage costs more than gold.
@farlight assuming that you're the creator do you think you'd be able to rework the HTML/CSS? I'm sure you've got good data but speaking on behalf of my eyeballs, the results page is... hard to read!
> 2G of random garbage is written directly onto one member device (behind the filesystem's back, offset 1G — python injector; uutils dd mis-seeks on dm devices), caches dropped, then a full scrub: btrfs scrub -B, zpool scrub + wait, bcachefs scrub, md/lvm sync-action 'check' (which can only COUNT mismatches — no checksums to know which copy is right).
I'm not sure that nuking 2G of the underlying block device is a recoverable error on any filesystem that I'm aware of? Can you confirm if any ofthe filesystems really came out of the other side in a usable state after scrubbing?
-----
> Trivial-op p99, idle (ms) # A trivial operation — one 4k write + fsync every 200ms (like a shell appending history or an editor updating its swap file) — run alone for 10s. p99 of the fsync completion
In fact, if it's OK for me to ask, are any of the metrics tht you used standard industry metrics? It looks like several of the tests are bypassing the kernel's page cache? -- which I worry may fall into the trap of "I modified the system to be unrepresentative of reality and then tested it".
----
> kernel 7.0.0-1012-azure
Can you confirm if you tested on a bare metal machine? were you the only tenant?
I think the reviews should also include the social aspect of these filesystems...
There is and have been many promising and exciting FS to replace the old boring ones, but for storage you not only want to avoid technical issues but also maintainer(s) drama...
> CI runs use loop devices on shared ephemeral VMs (one VM per filesystem): compare shapes and ratios, not absolute MB/s. Each job records a host-calibration anchor — see the table.
I think if you're not using baremetal for such tests, it's likely that the results are simply not comparable at all? What if another tenant is also using the disk?
It's a fair point but it's also possible the person running the tests has a dedicated test hypervisor for this , so that different configurations of filesystems and VMs can be created and destroyed quickly in an automated manner.
If it's something as simple as a KVM hypervisor that only runs 1 test VM at a time (with no other load from anything else other than the basic systemd daemons, ssh daemon etc running on the hypervisor), the results could be very close to bare metal.
I can see it being very time consuming and annoying to do repeated manual bare metal OS installs and new partitioning/filesystem creation for such a large variety of tests.
The author does also say that performance isn't really the main thing but rather, data integrity:
https://github.com/fenio/modern-fs-benchmark
> I can see it being very time consuming and annoying to do repeated manual bare metal OS installs.
Well don't do that then. There's lots of other options. Probably the simplest is a single bare metal install on a simple filesystem on one device. run the filesystems under test on other storage dedicated to testing.
You could also boot into a network install and use local storage exclusively for testing.
Yes exactly. The issueThe epherrality of the VMs isn't an issue, it's the _shared_ part that's the concern here. Going by the fact that the kernel is listed as "kernel 7.0.0-1012-azure" I feel like it's a fair risk that there may have been noisy neighbours.
> compare shapes and ratios, not absolute MB/s
In this case, given that the author's own disclaimer (above) already disclaims the numeric readings, I'm not sure how it's possible to make any inference on "shapes and ratios" derived from the numeric readings.
So two filesystems that are essentially shunned from the Linux kernel and permanent second-class citizens, and one that was removed from Red Hat and has a questionable history of reliability. Oh boy which do I choose?
I'm saying ZFS on another OS.
What is md-raid10 doing that is so much worse than lvm-raid10? In terms of "I/O" and "responsiveness." It's not really obvious to me from either the linked page or https://github.com/fenio/modern-fs-benchmark . In principle they should be similar?
https://github.com/fenio/modern-fs-benchmark
Oh, so bcachefs is doing pretty well.
Except for the fact that the developer has sabotaged the project into being removed from mainline?
That might be the best thing happened to the project since now development can happen at its own pace without the clicky bait influencers.
In fact they delivered the erasure coding for parity raid back in march this year.
The thing is that as soon as you seriously give a chance to Bcachefs you see how good it is. I can only tell you that mixing different device tiers and having a per-file/directory replication setting is a god send specially in these times where storage costs more than gold.
It's relatively easy to get it working as a kernel module at least. I got it set up on a NixOS box without too much trouble.
that's not necessarily a sabotage.
Sabotage might not be the best word, but it hurt trust and adoption.
what does "integrity" fail mean in the first table? that the case didn't recover from the 2G corruption?
For peace of mind I'm still using zfs (since the last 15+ years) but I'm definitely not impressed by the performance...
Different tools for different jobs; use ZFS for your data store and ext4 for your primary drive.
yes indeed, zfs for my nas basically
@farlight assuming that you're the creator do you think you'd be able to rework the HTML/CSS? I'm sure you've got good data but speaking on behalf of my eyeballs, the results page is... hard to read!
> 2G of random garbage is written directly onto one member device (behind the filesystem's back, offset 1G — python injector; uutils dd mis-seeks on dm devices), caches dropped, then a full scrub: btrfs scrub -B, zpool scrub + wait, bcachefs scrub, md/lvm sync-action 'check' (which can only COUNT mismatches — no checksums to know which copy is right).
I'm not sure that nuking 2G of the underlying block device is a recoverable error on any filesystem that I'm aware of? Can you confirm if any ofthe filesystems really came out of the other side in a usable state after scrubbing?
-----
> Trivial-op p99, idle (ms) # A trivial operation — one 4k write + fsync every 200ms (like a shell appending history or an editor updating its swap file) — run alone for 10s. p99 of the fsync completion
In fact, if it's OK for me to ask, are any of the metrics tht you used standard industry metrics? It looks like several of the tests are bypassing the kernel's page cache? -- which I worry may fall into the trap of "I modified the system to be unrepresentative of reality and then tested it".
----
> kernel 7.0.0-1012-azure
Can you confirm if you tested on a bare metal machine? were you the only tenant?
1 device out of the replica set I’m assuming so all of them should recover.
The integrity check is only on the tests which are either RAID or the filesystem equivalent.