Re: Varying Leafsize and Nodesize in Btrfs
From: Roman Mamedov <hidden>
Date: 2012-08-31 05:02:37
Attachments
- signature.asc [application/pgp-signature] 198 bytes
From: Roman Mamedov <hidden>
Date: 2012-08-31 05:02:37
On Thu, 30 Aug 2012 23:34:49 +0200 Martin Steigerwald [off-list ref] wrote:
I wanted to ask about 32k either. I used 32k on one 2,5 inch external esata disk. But I never measured anything so far. I wonder what a good value for SSD might be. I tend to not use anymore than 16k, but thats just some gut feeling right now. Nothing based on a well-founded explaination.
If you look closely at https://oss.oracle.com/~mason/blocksizes/ , you will notice that 16K delivers almost all of the 32K's performance gains in "Read", while not suffering from slowdowns that 32K shows in "Create" and "Delete". I have chosen 16K for my new /home partition (on an SSD+HDD mdadm RAID1). But what disappointed me at the time, is that one can't seem to have a "mixed" allocation FS with non-default leaf/node sizes. -- With respect, Roman ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ "Stallman had a printer, with code he could not see. So he began to tinker, and set the software free."