Interesting although I'd have liked more summaries: there's an awful lot there.
But the reasons I choose filesystems are more about reliability, failure modes, surrounding tooling, and so on.
Btrfs fails in several critical areas:
1. No way to accurately find free space
2. catastrophic failure on write if a volume fills up, the probability of which is greater because of #1
3. repair tools usually do not recover a corrupted volume and in my testing are most likely to render as damaged volume completely unreadable, which makes #2 worse
Put these things together and I can never trust Btrfs again. In the 9 years since I encountered these, I see no effort to fix them, just fooling around witg unimportant side details like performance tweaks.
Fix the critical issues first then make it faster.
fenio 19 hours ago [-]
The author of the benchmark here. I went over some comments and I'll try to tackle them here.
I'm pretty clear that GH runner based benchmark is far from perfect due to noisy neighbours etc. Thus every test first is running so called calibration... to reject completely unreliable VMs.
I'm fully aware that this can't completely fix the issue. Can limit it but not fix.
But as of now there are 593 runs recorded so average should still be quite meaningful.
Having that said I'm desperately trying to get REAL hardware to run that benchmark. With some successes ;)
But this new hardware has also so many disks that the plan is to try also more complex, tiered cache topologies. I'm working on it.
I'm happy to answer any other questions, sources of every piece of this benchmark are freely available and I'm not saying they are 100% correct. I'm open to improvements.
koverstreet 19 hours ago [-]
I went back and forth with Hetzner a couple times, I think we just got a bad machine :)
I've been saying it for months, but eventually I'm going to move the automated builds off the 48 core monster and we'll be able to use that for automated perf testing too. The machine we just got has spindles for EC perf testing, but the Hetzner monster has very high end enterprise ssdd.
Love to hear that there will be more real hw tests.
At the moment I am building NAS and used your benchmark for evaluating the filesystems.
I am glad to see that your data roughly matches mine (apart from scrub which on 4x 6tb HDDs took 15 hours for md-raid10 while CoW systems took seconds).
Personally I found that array of HDDs behaves very differently than GH runner (my feeling is that since it runs on same disk you are testing theoretical throughput rather than ability to utilize disks).
My tests gave an idea for following topologies:
* 4 HDDs (for example dm-raid has read balancing optimized specifically for HDDs)
* 5 HDDs (classical raid should see no improvement but btrfs and bcachefs should balance the load)
* 4 SSDs
* 3 HDDs + 1 SSD no tiering
* 2 HDDs + 2 SSD no tiering
* 1 drive 10x larger than others (since how bcachefs and btrfs allocators work)
* nocow
Thanks for awesome work
ciupicri 3 hours ago [-]
How can a scrub take only seconds when it has to read all the data?
Polizeiposaune 16 minutes ago [-]
zfs-style scrub only reads allocated blocks and skips unallocated blocks; if the pool is mostly empty it can complete very quickly.
Layered storage systems with a RAID layer that makes N disks look like one big disk generally don't have visibility into which blocks are free and which are allocated so they must "scrub" all the disks on initialization and repair even if only 1% is used.
zenoprax 7 hours ago [-]
I have three identical Lenovo SFF PCs with a U.2 SSD in each. I'm currently running them in a Ceph cluster but I'll be tearing that down soon. I could run some benchmarks with three in one box and report back? Would be a one-time thing rather than an on-going commitment though.
Disregard, I just saw you have some RAID10 tests in there so three SSDs won't be enough.
Joel_Mckay 18 hours ago [-]
Should include:
1. Dual Ext4 + external 32GB journal X4 pcie SSD (the prior winner of benchmark surveys)
2. Bare F2FS after a trim and SSD vendor software cache flush operation (it should be slower, but knowing how much slower on identical hardware could be interesting.)
3. DRBD across a 48U 100Gbps host rack (single X4 pcie data drive per host, OS on primary)
4. CephFS across a 48U 100Gbps host rack (single X4 pcie data drive per host, OS on primary)
Best regards =3
delamon 6 hours ago [-]
6. modern nvme drive, preferrably pcie gen5 that can push >14GiB/sec
throwaway270925 17 hours ago [-]
Also
5. a ZFS dRaid configuration. There could be very different characteristics there with it using slabs.
Speaking of slabs, MS ReFS of you feel adventurous!
craniumjello 1 hours ago [-]
You so smart
bhaney 18 hours ago [-]
Seeing great results from bcachefs just makes me more sad that Kent and the other kernel devs couldn't come to an understanding to keep bcachefs in-tree. I want to use it for my storage arrays so badly, but I'm still stuck with btrfs as the only available in-tree filesystem with modern features.
RX14 6 hours ago [-]
Personally I've had 0 issues with the bcachefs dkms packages from distro repos. Unlike zfs it keeps up with upstream kernel releases so it's far less hassle than running zfs dkms.
hnarn 2 hours ago [-]
> Unlike zfs it keeps up with upstream kernel releases
Most normal users and especially servers have no reason to run latest upstream kernels
khajdamowicz 8 hours ago [-]
You can use NASty as NAS appliance. It's based on NixOS, offers flexibility, atomic upgrades and all bells and whistles of bcachefs.
locknitpicker 6 hours ago [-]
> Seeing great results from bcachefs just makes me more sad that Kent and the other kernel devs couldn't come to an understanding to keep bcachefs in-tree.
I think you are sugarcoating the shit show that was bcachefs's history of involvement in the linux kernel. I mean, do I need to mention that the person was subjected to a code of conduct enforcement action due to his long history of abuse and unprofessional behavior?
What do u mean NixOS? It's an OS not a file system
koverstreet 6 hours ago [-]
NixOS thoroughly solves all the external module fragility. They also do distro level CI testing.
Farmadupe 20 hours ago [-]
> 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?
walrus01 19 hours ago [-]
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.
Farmadupe 19 hours ago [-]
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.
fenio 18 hours ago [-]
Obviously they could and probably were noisy neighbours. I'm not trying to hide that fact.
Initial step for every benchmark is test of underlying device to at least reject completely unlucky cases.
Also after almost 600 runs average is probably more or less correct...
Also take a look at tests on real hardware. There are not many of them but there are some. I pointed to them in my first answer.
Farmadupe 19 hours ago [-]
> 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.
fenio 18 hours ago [-]
For the main linked benchmark there are no dedicated test hypervisors. It's all based on GH runners with all the limitations and quirks that came with it.
But unfortunatelly it's much more limited number of actual runs.
sas-hdd is still in progress so numbers for it should increase over time.
sippingabonedry 19 hours ago [-]
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.
em-bee 11 hours ago [-]
no thanks to red hat. i switched to debian for servers. fedora fortunately still supports btrfs.
zfs is shunned. can't really get around that copyright issue. bcachefs just hit a setback, which i am hopeful will eventually be resolved.
rdtsc 6 hours ago [-]
> zfs is shunned. can't really get around that copyright issue
Well except for Ubuntu, one of the most popular Linux distros supporting it.
ghaff 2 hours ago [-]
There's also not a lot of money in Canonical for someone (Oracle) to sue for. Red Hat (now IBM/Red Hat) and I guess even SUSE is a different equation. Red Hat just wouldn't touch ZFS because of licensing.
p_l 8 hours ago [-]
The copyright issue is not really that big, except from some devs who decided to sure Ubuntu :V
But there's a LOT of FUD about it.
em-bee 7 minutes ago [-]
it is big enough that it prevents distributions to include zfs. and that in reality is the problem. i would not care much if all distributions decided to ignore the copyright issue like canonical does and i could therefore get reliable support for zfs. but alone the thought of having to boot a rescue system to fix my broken computer and then not having zfs support because no one built a rescue system with it included is making the risk to high.
petre 18 hours ago [-]
xfs/lvm-raid10 or ext4/lvm-raid10, obviously.
sippingabonedry 16 hours ago [-]
If I'm forced to use Linux, sure.
I could drop bricks on and cord pull those all day and they would not lose data. Which is a small ask for a filesystem IMO.
andriy_koval 13 hours ago [-]
would want to have compression..
simoncion 7 hours ago [-]
> would want to have compression..
I learned about VDO today. [0][1] I'd never heard of it before, but I'm using Gentoo Linux and both the dm-vdo kernel module and the 'vdo' software provided by [1] are distributed by Gentoo... so this isn't some weirdo Red Hat thing. It looks like you manage and used these just like any other thin-provisioned LVM volume [2], but -like I said- I've not used this before, and have only just skimmed the docs, so it's possible that I'm missing something important.
BCacheFS is the best Linux filesystem now that storage costs a premium.
You can mix devices of different sizes and types on bcachefs. You can have foreground and background devices to balance performance and also different compression settings for foreground and background transactions.
You can set replicas=N to the individual file or directory on bcachefs. For example files you can just re-download or re-build. Likewise you can set a higher number of copies to important files.
lukaslalinsky 9 hours ago [-]
I've been using ZFS on my Linux servers for years and have pretty good experience with it. I've not been following Linux development too much. Is bcachefs usable/stable/reliable enough to replace it?
khajdamowicz 8 hours ago [-]
It's not as battle-tested like ZFS with 15+ years of field usage, but it's good enough for me and other users.
There's a NAS appliance called NASty and it shares publicly usage stats: https://nasty-telemetry.pages.dev/
Those numbers are NASty alone. There are more users on other systems.
cromka 5 hours ago [-]
15+ years of ZFS code is also often said as being a nearly unmanageable pile of mess, supposedly to the point that there’s some of the code that maintainers are afraid of touching, and with plenty of unresolved weird bugs (which I experienced myself with data loss).
Sometimes starting fresh with one coherent codebase and all features design baked in from the start might be better.
suncore 18 hours ago [-]
Sure, when it's mature...
mkeedlinger 18 hours ago [-]
Yeah, and I think Overstreet might be going hard on AI, so not sure how that might effect the project
koverstreet 18 hours ago [-]
If you have "refine until it's perfect and don't screw with things you don't understand" thoroughly ingrained, along with the dangers of overconfidence, you'll do fine with AI.
Not everyone gets it though, that's for sure.
And, if you want to know if it's mature, I'd trust the user reports over the one liners :)
In case someone wonders why bcachefs is sadly no longer part of the mainline kernel. Start reading here:
https://lwn.net/Articles/1027289/
lifty 5 hours ago [-]
Is there any chance bcachefs will be included again in the future?
gdgghhhhh 5 hours ago [-]
I'm optimistic.
doubletwoyou 4 hours ago [-]
Sir Overstreet still seems insistent on having done no wrong on account of fixing user bugs taking priority over literally everything, so clearly there’s a mindset clash that’s gonna prevent a re-merging unless that Torvalds decides to change the same procedure he’s been doing for the past 2 decades or Overstreet knocks his own ego down a peg.
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?
18 hours ago [-]
jmalicki 19 hours ago [-]
[flagged]
ttiurani 3 hours ago [-]
I'd be interested to see what the upcoming Btrfs performance improvements in linux 7.3 do for these benchmarks.
Excuse my ignorance, but why didn't you benchmark on a RAM disk for more accurate results?
olavgg 5 hours ago [-]
The numbers are quite interesting, does bcachefs run on Almalinux 10? I only see Fedora supported. All my servers run Almalinux today and I am super happy with it, no plans to use something else.
How is root support for bcachefs? This is the one thing I really miss with ZFS today, its just too much work. I do love my FreeBSD systems with a root ZFS though.
d12bb 31 minutes ago [-]
Don’t know Almalinux, but can vouch for bcachefs root being just fine with NixOS.
blop 19 hours ago [-]
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...
koverstreet 19 hours ago [-]
Why do people keep bringing up drama?
The community infighting has sucked, but that's a thing that matters primarily for maintainers.
I think most users just want something that works.
blop 16 hours ago [-]
drama matters because most users don't want to have their favourite FS randomly removed from the kernel unexpectedly after some OS update :)
That said I certainly hope that one day the technical advantage of bcachefs will be so overwhelming that maybe the decision to remove it will be overturned. And if big vendors make it their default FS the bus factor will disappear (even if unofficially you'd still be the sole maintainer, but no one cares about that in the enterprise world...)
rleigh 5 hours ago [-]
> most users don't want to have their favourite FS randomly removed from the kernel
True. But when you look at this, isn't the deeper problem that Linux remains such a monolith, and there's a stark difference between "included" and "not included" in the kernel. It's now over 35 years old. The fact that we can't have stable APIs and develop more out-of-tree drivers is not a strength, it's a weakness.
Even old Unix systems like SVR4 managed to have stable, public driver interfaces, despite being rather proprietary. FreeBSD manages to have drivers in its ports tree, with a stable API for a given major version. What makes Linux so special that it can't manage this?
I understand all of the arguments about why this has to be so. But... they might have made sense in the early days, but after 35 years it screams of immaturity. Plenty of other systems, including other open source systems, manage to do this, including having versioned interfaces so things aren't set in stone. Linux remains right at the extreme end of guaranteeing nothing. I've long thought this was unnecessary and counterproductive.
throw0101a 3 hours ago [-]
> drama matters because most users don't want to have their favourite FS randomly removed from the kernel unexpectedly after some OS update :)
Jokes on you then: my favourite FS can't be "randomly removed from the kernel unexpectedly after some OS update" because it never made it in — ZFS. :)
throwaway85825 18 hours ago [-]
I don't care about the drama, I just want to say thank you for your continued work to advance the state of the art in open file systems.
koverstreet 18 hours ago [-]
Appreciate it :)
Skunkleton 19 hours ago [-]
Related username?
To answer the original question, most people who care about their filesystem at all care about its stability. Not just "does it work now" but also "will it work and improve over time". Infighting puts the future at risk.
koverstreet 19 hours ago [-]
It really does.
But you might want to check out the bus factor on btrfs too; when a maintainer says "but we've saved Facebook billions and billions of dollars!", calls for the other filesystem maintainer to be ejected from the community, then quits to join Anthropic a month later - that's not a vote of confidence.
I'd be very happy if people could just stop bringing up drama and us factors. We put it behind us a year ago, but it seems not everyone got the memo.
nolist_policy 7 hours ago [-]
Checking the bus factor:
Btrfs regulars:
- 1 from Meta
- 1 from Oracle
- 4 from SuSe
- 2 from WDC
bcachefs:
- Kent Overstreet
throw0101a 3 hours ago [-]
And Btrfs still does not have a RAID-5/6 that they themselves recommend for usage:
Other things: since no companies sponsoring its development had any interest in raid 5/6, which is mostly a home enthusiast thing.
Western Digital picked up this work last year and is slowly getting through the new design without the write hole, I think we'll see working raid 5/6 in the next year or two.
throw0101a 55 minutes ago [-]
> Other things: since no companies sponsoring its development had any interest in raid 5/6, which is mostly a home enthusiast thing.
I've used RAID-Z1/2/3 at a couple of jobs: yes IOps is suck-y, but if it's for backups of other systems, or the central logging server, or network monitoring (Suricata, Snort), sometimes your priority is cheap/bulk.
I'm currently in the HPC space, and Lustre is a thing here, and it has tiered storage via policies: you can (e.g.) put your recent/hot data on NVMe, but older/colder bits on spinning rust on ZFS.
r0l1 6 hours ago [-]
Might end in a new bcachefs fork beeing included back into mainline. If companies sponsor a few fulltime devs working on the new fork, we finally might have a stable enterprise ready CoW filesystem.
koverstreet 1 hours ago [-]
Uhh, do you know what the upstream stance is on testing and fixing bugs?
I doubt there'd be any real interest in a bastardized fork that only exists so the deep pocketed vendors can get away with code dump and run.
badgersnake 18 hours ago [-]
Reiserfs was the OG drama fs
blop 17 hours ago [-]
That's what I meant, it's always risky to rely on a single person for such an important subsystem as storage... I'm also very sad that bcachefs has been kicked out of the kernel, it is really a very promising FS.
So that leaves btrfs which always seemed complex and brittle to me (compared to zfs at least)
magicalhippo 19 hours ago [-]
> Every push/2-hourly cron builds each filesystem across 4 loop devices backed by sparse files, runs the suite, and publishes a results table in the job summary plus JSON artifacts.
I get that real hardware costs (author mentions EUR 70 a month for a suitable server), but without at least a baseline snapshot comparison run between real hardware, both SSD and HDD, and the sparse file-backed loop devices, it's hard to take much away from this.
Sadly the AI apocalypse isn't making stuff like this easy to do as a hobby.
cromka 5 hours ago [-]
At this point with these results I wonder if there’s big corp backing for bcachefs yet? I’d imagine they’d want to migrate to it at some point for some of their uses.
koverstreet 4 hours ago [-]
Yes, has been for awhile
cromka 4 hours ago [-]
Great to hear. Keep up the great work and I hope that with time and project maturity, I.e. when the code changes are more of the maintenance than “new feature” nature, it makes its way back to the mainline just fine.
Also hope Proxmox decides to incorporate it somewhat soon in PVE.
skerit 20 hours ago [-]
Oh, so bcachefs is doing pretty well.
tarruda 20 hours ago [-]
Except for the fact that the developer has sabotaged the project into being removed from mainline?
irusensei 19 hours ago [-]
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.
tarruda 18 hours ago [-]
> The thing is that as soon as you seriously give a chance to Bcachefs you see how good it is.
I'm pretty sure Bcachefs is amazing and better than Btrfs. I also think Zfs is amazing and better than Btrfs. Even so, I still use Btrfs because I know it is guaranteed to always be present on any Linux without any effort on my part.
> That might be the best thing happened to the project since now development can happen at its own pace without the clicky bait influencers.
A better approach might have been to just paused mainline merging instead of forcing being kicked out?
Eg "Hey Linus, Bcachefs is still in early development and I need to merge changes in a pace that is not compatible with Linux development process. So I'm going to pause for a while now and once it reaches maintenance status I will focus on submitting patches in a healthy pace that you can digest".
ssl-3 17 hours ago [-]
> I still use Btrfs because I know it is guaranteed to always be present on any Linux without any effort on my part.
I used to think that about ReiserFS, too. It was in the mainline kernel, development was snappy, and it solved some performance problems. I used it all over the place.
Things then subsequently... changed. :-/
bjoli 3 hours ago [-]
You had plenty of time to move away from reiserfs. Something like 15 years between the conviction and removal.
nvme0n1p1 18 hours ago [-]
> Even so, I still use Btrfs because I know it is guaranteed to always be present on any Linux without any effort on my part.
I'm impressed with bcachefs's accomplishments though, and if they ever reconcile with the kernel I'll surely give it a fair shake.
koverstreet 16 hours ago [-]
bcachefs on Arch is a bit better supported, we have the distro package maintainer in the bcachefs IRC channel, and I've never lagged on mainline support like ZFS has.
Actual distro support, and doing it right with people actually communicating with each other, has always been a priority for the project.
andriy_koval 13 hours ago [-]
btrfs has one critical issue they don't fix: it blocks access to fs for minutes if you remove large files. I am not sure how this is acceptable for prod grade fs..
nolist_policy 8 hours ago [-]
Only if you have quotas enabled IIRC.
simoncion 6 hours ago [-]
> it blocks access to fs for minutes if you remove large files.
How large is large? I've deleted files with sizes of tens to hundreds of GBs and not seen that, and can probably whip up a test with a single-digit TB file if motivated.
Do you perhaps have 'discard=sync' in your mount options, or are using a kernel earlier than 6.2, which is the version -according to the docs- where async discard became the default?
doubled112 17 hours ago [-]
> I still use Btrfs because I know it is guaranteed to always be present on any Linux without any effort on my part.
Except RHEL. They don’t include it in their kernels.
Alma Linux started including it again though.
It can never be easy.
cromka 4 hours ago [-]
Came here to say this. Supposedly Fedora also considers giving up on it.
farlight 2 hours ago [-]
This sounds like FUD, do you have any references? Genuinely asking. I follow LWN reporting religiously, which in turn follows Fedora development (and associated drama) closely, and haven't seen anything said in this direction. Just had a quick look on LWN and Fedora development resources, and nothing came up.
irusensei 18 hours ago [-]
I think in a perfect world they should had put someone in between to mediate and curate patches while providing DKMS for urgent patches.
As for BTRFS I think its also pretty good. Its just that I have the impression its development is guided by the needs of its sponsors and sadly for us META doesn't need RAID5.
koverstreet 18 hours ago [-]
Meta doesn't have anyone working on btrfs anymore, it appears to be two guys at SuSE and drive bys.
nolist_policy 8 hours ago [-]
Not true, Boris Burkov from Meta works on btrfs. And two people from WDC.
koverstreet 1 hours ago [-]
Within the last year? I think bcachefs is going to be overtaking btrfs soon on active developers, from the trends I saw in the commit logs
koverstreet 18 hours ago [-]
I was very up front about where we were at.
A lot of things were tried, people did try to mediate.
The particularly galling thing though was when I finally started looking - post split - comparing bcachefs PRs to other subsystems and especially XFS - I was being more conservative with what I considered a critical bugfix.
There was never a clear statement on what the issue was. What you guys got in public was about as much as I got.
All I can say is - going fast when you're stabilizing and getting bugfixes out the door is what you can and should be doing when you've invested in test coverage, test automation, keeping the codebase clean and asserted, and building up a community that works well together on testing and shaking things out.
I genuinely do not know what they were thinking.
r0l1 6 hours ago [-]
Just pleases try to get it back into mainline.
locknitpicker 8 hours ago [-]
> There was never a clear statement on what the issue was. What you guys got in public was about as much as I got.
If you are referring to why bcachefs was removed from the Linux kernel, here's a discussion on bcachefs being removed from the Linux kernel.
I'd like to point out that HN user koverstreet was involved in those threads, here.
They already know what was discussed.
(Good? Bad? Indifferent? I don't know and I don't have a dog in this race. I'm just here connecting the dots.)
novafunc 18 hours ago [-]
bcachefs was already working at its own pace prior to being accepted in the kernel. It could have continued doing so for years until it was really "ready".
Instead it got kicked out because Kent constantly ignored the kernel's contribution rules and is unlikely it will ever be accepted back into the kernel.
irusensei 18 hours ago [-]
That would be a shame since there is nothing else over there with the same set of features. Disregarding drama, I'm telling you it’s that good.
koverstreet 18 hours ago [-]
I'd really appreciate it if we could drop the FUD over contribution rules. There are no such rules, it is explicitly Linus's way or the highway, and I already replied to that elsewhere.
And it went in when it did because Redhat was pushing for it and claiming to be supportive - but that never materialized. They wanted to get something for free without investing, or putting in the absolute bare minimum.
A _lot_ of people were saying publicly and privately "dear god yes we need something better than btrfs" - but no one from the existing kernel community was interested in stepping up.
Community's still growing, though. A lot of people have gotten active in making sure bcachefs actually works well for people end to end, and there's a hell of a lot more to shipping a filesystem than just writing kernel code.
pantalaimon 17 hours ago [-]
You can't let Reddit guide your technical decisions.
The FS was marked experimental, so there is no urgency in fixing bugs or providing features in a certain cycle. Everyone using it knows what they got themselves into. You can still provide the DKMS module for faster fixes and features for anyone who wants to use BCacheFS more seriously for the time that the upstreaming process takes, but eventually it would have all been on mainline.
Asahi is taking a similar approach where they have their downstream kernel and push things upstream once they are mature.
That means the upstream kernel is not useful for running on that hardware now, but things are moving there eventually.
koverstreet 16 hours ago [-]
No urgency over fixing bugs? What do you think this is, btrfs? :)
All this has been discussed to death, we don't need people armchair quarterbacking a year later. It's over, it's time to move on.
tosti 9 hours ago [-]
[flagged]
tombert 19 hours ago [-]
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.
petre 18 hours ago [-]
Not something I'd want to do with my filesystem though. ZFS is different story it it isn't on the root fs because it might be packaged by the distribution.
also tricks to make it easy to convert a root FS to ZFS now that Ubuntu Server 24.04 added native root-on-zfs support: https://github.com/pirate/zfsify
tombert 7 hours ago [-]
I hadn't heard of zfsify, but I think I'll check it out on yet another old laptop running ext4.
tombert 18 hours ago [-]
Fair, I still don’t use it on my main machine, just a shitty laptop that I keep around to play with.
AceJohnny2 19 hours ago [-]
that's not necessarily a sabotage.
eikenberry 19 hours ago [-]
Sabotage might not be the best word, but it hurt trust and adoption.
koverstreet 19 hours ago [-]
It's just been a lot less drama within the project since the split.
I do have a lot more pull requests to merge than I did before. I don't know if you want to count "Kent isn't reviewing PRs fast enough" as drama :)
what does "integrity" fail mean in the first table? that the case didn't recover from the 2G corruption?
fenio 18 hours ago [-]
The current “Integrity” label is broader than the test actually proves, and I’m changing it to “Corruption probe.”
FAIL means that file changed or became unreadable. SURVIVED means only that the file remained readable and hash-identical. It does not prove the entire filesystem was healthy, that every overwritten byte was allocated, or that all 2 GiB were repaired.
Thanks for pointing it.
blop 20 hours ago [-]
For peace of mind I'm still using zfs (since the last 15+ years) but I'm definitely not impressed by the performance...
slyfox125 20 hours ago [-]
Different tools for different jobs; use ZFS for your data store and ext4 for your primary drive.
blop 19 hours ago [-]
yes indeed, zfs for my nas basically
throwaway270925 16 hours ago [-]
Depending on your current setup, dRaid can give you quite the performance boost nowadays, since its data slabs are spread out over all disks in the array its using all of the disks bandwith combined.
badgersnake 18 hours ago [-]
zfs-mirror-8k (whatever that is) looks alright.
magicalhippo 14 hours ago [-]
The script[1] shows it's a ZFS mirror (RAID-1) with 8k max record size, as opposed to the default 128k.
I say max, as ZFS stores multiples of the physical block size up to the record size. So even with 128k record size, if your file fits in two physical blocks, it will write two physical blocks of data.
The `ashift` parameter[2] controls the physical block size, typically 512 bytes or 4k for HDDs. Though higher can be useful on SSDs (but less tested, have seen some bug reports with >4k block sizes).
Typically you'd only want to use such small records if you are tuning it for a specific workload, like if you have a database that writes 8k pages.
Compression acts on records, so by limiting the record size, you limit the effectiveness of the compression: 1.2 and 1.8 blocks worth of data both gets written as 2 physical blocks.
On the upside, record size is a dataset property, so you can have many different datasets with different record sizes on the same pool.
It could use some explanation for the exact setups. Like how many drives are there in each raid, what does the ec config actually look like, etc. As far as I can see it's not described.
fenio 6 hours ago [-]
I extended info about setup. Should be visible in top part of benchmark.
pzmarzly 17 hours ago [-]
xfs is by far the slowest in "ftruncate empty file to 1G" but the fastest in "ftruncate 256M file to 512M" - does anyone know why?
@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!
Farmadupe 20 hours ago [-]
> 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?
matja 18 hours ago [-]
> I'm not sure that nuking 2G of the underlying block device is a recoverable error on any filesystem that I'm aware of?
ZFS and btrfs were designed from the start to handle this, by using checksums on every piece of (meta)data and redundancy to return the same data as was stored to the kernel, and rewrite the bad data.
I've tested my own machines running ZFS by random writes out of band from the filesystem/kernel and it has always found and fixed them.
fenio 6 hours ago [-]
I answered in other thread how exactly integrity check looks like and why the name might be misleading. I'm also in the middle of updating descriptions to be more adequate. Thanks for pointing that out.
Speaking about standard industry metrics.
fio is an established tool, and throughput, IOPS, fsync latency, and percentiles are standard concepts. However, the exact job recipes and the composite “Overall Core” score are project-specific.
The trivial-operation test is also custom: one 4 KiB write plus fsync every 200 ms. The idle window contains at most about 50 operations, so its p99 is effectively the slowest sample’s fio histogram bucket, not a statistically stable population percentile. It should be treated as a small-write durability-latency probe, not a universal application metric.
But after all all tests are in the repository. If they need tweaks, changes I'm open to do so... I started from scratch and did whatever came to my mind. Some tests are added after my initial link here which went mostly unnoticed several weeks ago but I got some requests for more tests which I implemented.
But to sum up. I want this test to be useful so feel free to open PRs with improvements. It's not like I've got some agenda. In fact I wrote here and there on the page that I'm counting on communities of various filesystems to provide improvements, changes etc to make their filesystem shining.
This is personal project made when I realized that multiple-devices benchmarks were almost completely absent. Since I had not access to real hardware I decided to make at least initially everything based on GH runner with all the limitations that came with this approach. I tried to limit these limitations as far as I could. But feel free to submit bugreports, PRs, propositions for improvements.
vlovich123 20 hours ago [-]
1 device out of the replica set I’m assuming so all of them should recover.
hlieberman 20 hours ago [-]
The integrity check is only on the tests which are either RAID or the filesystem equivalent.
fenio 19 hours ago [-]
what exactly would you like to improve?
Farmadupe 18 hours ago [-]
I'd actually recommend some excellent books on the "philosophy" of data presentation: The first that comes to mind is "the visual display of quantitative information" by Edward Tufte seems to be freely available online, and the other one on my mind is "how charts lie" by Alberto Cairo (which doesn't seem to be freely accessible)
But if it helps, just some "initial gut feel observations" from me:
* It's definitely not possible to find issue with the the _sheer amount_ of results, but there's just far too much for a human to absorb, all presented at once
* Overall text size is quite small, and difficult to read
* The page doesn't make a strong statement of _what_ is under test: the first words are: "modern-fs-benchmark Multi-device CoW filesystems under workloads classic benchmarks skip" -- which defines the webpage in terms of what it is _not_, without stating what benchmarks are actually present.
* The first line of teh page contains run statistics that probably eithre want to b at the bottom, or just don't need to be in the webpage at all: "latest run 2026-09-18 18:50:45 UTC, kernel 7.0.0-1012-azure, 593 runs recorded · 145 trend points shown"
* A significant proportion of the free text is caveats. There's nothing wrong with being transparent about limitations, but they may be a sign that there might be alternative ways to present the data, or that the data may be flawed (depending on the caveat)
* Theres several categories that I think have been invented for the purpose of collation, but I don't think are defined on the page. I think "Overall Core" and "Core I/O" aren't explained, which means by definition it's impossible for a reader to understand the score table.
* And as we're all aware right now, current Claude models are currently struggling to write coherent English. There's several incoherent sentences on the page. It's a Claude issue.
fenio 5 hours ago [-]
It's not easy to show so many data and make everyone happy about the way it is presented. In fact I'm aiming more at engineers and trying to provide as much info as it is possible to be clear about methodology and everything around it.
But raw data is in JSON files so you can always make PR for creating additional view aimed at philosophers and not engineers ;)
koverstreet 18 hours ago [-]
Speaking as someone who consumes this, I appreciate how it's laid out. As a developer, we can often see at a glance where the bottleneck is if we have enough data laid out - IOW, data overload for you is me feeling like a kid in a candy store.
Sometimes there are ways to make things easier without dumbing them down, but way too many people conflate the two; I get nervous when non engineers say "I've studied this, it should be easy".
Farmadupe 17 hours ago [-]
ah, yes that's obviously fine; I'm definitely coming fromt he perspective of "bored guy on a Saturday evening who happened to stumble across someone else's wall of charts on HN"
koverstreet 17 hours ago [-]
I think the Phoronix test suite does pretty well for the end user who wants something easy to digest; the exact choice of benchmarks is sometimes odd but the harness itself is quite good.
At some point I'd like to get our own automated pts runs going, since Michael is not consistent with what hardware he tests on and he hasn't been consistent with getting them out.
nullc 17 hours ago [-]
It'll be interesting when people start applying similar effort that is going into LLM search for security vulnerabilities to finding conventional reliability/performance bugs.
20 hours ago [-]
azatom 18 hours ago [-]
clicked, ctrl+f ssd, hdd, not found, closed
fenio 6 hours ago [-]
The new machine - I mentioned in the other thread - has both HDDs and SSDs so tests with mixed topologies are planed.
azatom 17 hours ago [-]
In filesystem subject a proper critique is mentioning ssd vs hdd. I did not added value for karma increase, but karma lost? Who haven't I wished a happy birthday?
vilas900420 7 hours ago [-]
[flagged]
Rendered at 14:38:00 GMT+0000 (Coordinated Universal Time) with Vercel.
But the reasons I choose filesystems are more about reliability, failure modes, surrounding tooling, and so on.
Btrfs fails in several critical areas:
1. No way to accurately find free space
2. catastrophic failure on write if a volume fills up, the probability of which is greater because of #1
3. repair tools usually do not recover a corrupted volume and in my testing are most likely to render as damaged volume completely unreadable, which makes #2 worse
Put these things together and I can never trust Btrfs again. In the 9 years since I encountered these, I see no effort to fix them, just fooling around witg unimportant side details like performance tweaks.
Fix the critical issues first then make it faster.
Having that said I'm desperately trying to get REAL hardware to run that benchmark. With some successes ;)
Few months ago I got Hetzner machine from Kent Overstreet and I was able to finish 3 runs before machine died... Results: https://bartosz.fenski.pl/modern-fs-benchmark/real-hw/
Currently I've got even more interesting machine with tons of disks and I'm running new set of benchmarks but it's really in its initial stage.
https://bartosz.fenski.pl/modern-fs-benchmark/sas-hdd/ 2nd run in progress... one run on REAL hardware takes much more time than on GH runner so it's slow.
But this new hardware has also so many disks that the plan is to try also more complex, tiered cache topologies. I'm working on it.
I'm happy to answer any other questions, sources of every piece of this benchmark are freely available and I'm not saying they are 100% correct. I'm open to improvements.
I've been saying it for months, but eventually I'm going to move the automated builds off the 48 core monster and we'll be able to use that for automated perf testing too. The machine we just got has spindles for EC perf testing, but the Hetzner monster has very high end enterprise ssdd.
Also, just got done with the Rust for Linux conference, still not home but here's slides that still need reformatting: https://evilpiepirate.org/~kent/Kangrejos-2026-bcachefs.pdf
Layered storage systems with a RAID layer that makes N disks look like one big disk generally don't have visibility into which blocks are free and which are allocated so they must "scrub" all the disks on initialization and repair even if only 1% is used.
Disregard, I just saw you have some RAID10 tests in there so three SSDs won't be enough.
1. Dual Ext4 + external 32GB journal X4 pcie SSD (the prior winner of benchmark surveys)
2. Bare F2FS after a trim and SSD vendor software cache flush operation (it should be slower, but knowing how much slower on identical hardware could be interesting.)
3. DRBD across a 48U 100Gbps host rack (single X4 pcie data drive per host, OS on primary)
4. CephFS across a 48U 100Gbps host rack (single X4 pcie data drive per host, OS on primary)
Best regards =3
5. a ZFS dRaid configuration. There could be very different characteristics there with it using slabs.
Speaking of slabs, MS ReFS of you feel adventurous!
Most normal users and especially servers have no reason to run latest upstream kernels
I think you are sugarcoating the shit show that was bcachefs's history of involvement in the linux kernel. I mean, do I need to mention that the person was subjected to a code of conduct enforcement action due to his long history of abuse and unprofessional behavior?
https://lwn.net/Articles/999197/
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?
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
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.
Also take a look at tests on real hardware. There are not many of them but there are some. I pointed to them in my first answer.
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.
Real hardware is used in: https://bartosz.fenski.pl/modern-fs-benchmark/real-hw/ https://bartosz.fenski.pl/modern-fs-benchmark/sas-hdd/
But unfortunatelly it's much more limited number of actual runs. sas-hdd is still in progress so numbers for it should increase over time.
I'm saying ZFS on another OS.
zfs is shunned. can't really get around that copyright issue. bcachefs just hit a setback, which i am hopeful will eventually be resolved.
Well except for Ubuntu, one of the most popular Linux distros supporting it.
But there's a LOT of FUD about it.
I could drop bricks on and cord pull those all day and they would not lose data. Which is a small ask for a filesystem IMO.
I learned about VDO today. [0][1] I'd never heard of it before, but I'm using Gentoo Linux and both the dm-vdo kernel module and the 'vdo' software provided by [1] are distributed by Gentoo... so this isn't some weirdo Red Hat thing. It looks like you manage and used these just like any other thin-provisioned LVM volume [2], but -like I said- I've not used this before, and have only just skimmed the docs, so it's possible that I'm missing something important.
[0] <https://docs.redhat.com/en/documentation/red_hat_enterprise_...>
[1] <https://github.com/dm-vdo/vdo>
[2] <https://docs.redhat.com/en/documentation/red_hat_enterprise_...>
You can mix devices of different sizes and types on bcachefs. You can have foreground and background devices to balance performance and also different compression settings for foreground and background transactions.
You can set replicas=N to the individual file or directory on bcachefs. For example files you can just re-download or re-build. Likewise you can set a higher number of copies to important files.
There's a NAS appliance called NASty and it shares publicly usage stats: https://nasty-telemetry.pages.dev/ Those numbers are NASty alone. There are more users on other systems.
Sometimes starting fresh with one coherent codebase and all features design baked in from the start might be better.
Not everyone gets it though, that's for sure.
And, if you want to know if it's mature, I'd trust the user reports over the one liners :)
Edit: I think this makes for some good reading: https://lkml.org/lkml/2025/8/9/427
https://www.phoronix.com/review/linux-73-btrfs
How is root support for bcachefs? This is the one thing I really miss with ZFS today, its just too much work. I do love my FreeBSD systems with a root ZFS though.
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...
The community infighting has sucked, but that's a thing that matters primarily for maintainers.
I think most users just want something that works.
That said I certainly hope that one day the technical advantage of bcachefs will be so overwhelming that maybe the decision to remove it will be overturned. And if big vendors make it their default FS the bus factor will disappear (even if unofficially you'd still be the sole maintainer, but no one cares about that in the enterprise world...)
True. But when you look at this, isn't the deeper problem that Linux remains such a monolith, and there's a stark difference between "included" and "not included" in the kernel. It's now over 35 years old. The fact that we can't have stable APIs and develop more out-of-tree drivers is not a strength, it's a weakness.
Even old Unix systems like SVR4 managed to have stable, public driver interfaces, despite being rather proprietary. FreeBSD manages to have drivers in its ports tree, with a stable API for a given major version. What makes Linux so special that it can't manage this?
I understand all of the arguments about why this has to be so. But... they might have made sense in the early days, but after 35 years it screams of immaturity. Plenty of other systems, including other open source systems, manage to do this, including having versioned interfaces so things aren't set in stone. Linux remains right at the extreme end of guaranteeing nothing. I've long thought this was unnecessary and counterproductive.
Jokes on you then: my favourite FS can't be "randomly removed from the kernel unexpectedly after some OS update" because it never made it in — ZFS. :)
To answer the original question, most people who care about their filesystem at all care about its stability. Not just "does it work now" but also "will it work and improve over time". Infighting puts the future at risk.
But you might want to check out the bus factor on btrfs too; when a maintainer says "but we've saved Facebook billions and billions of dollars!", calls for the other filesystem maintainer to be ejected from the community, then quits to join Anthropic a month later - that's not a vote of confidence.
I'd be very happy if people could just stop bringing up drama and us factors. We put it behind us a year ago, but it seems not everyone got the memo.
Btrfs regulars:
- 1 from Meta
- 1 from Oracle
- 4 from SuSe
- 2 from WDC
bcachefs:
- Kent Overstreet
* https://btrfs.readthedocs.io/en/latest/btrfs-man5.html#man-b...
What have they been doing for the last decade(+)?
Western Digital picked up this work last year and is slowly getting through the new design without the write hole, I think we'll see working raid 5/6 in the next year or two.
I've used RAID-Z1/2/3 at a couple of jobs: yes IOps is suck-y, but if it's for backups of other systems, or the central logging server, or network monitoring (Suricata, Snort), sometimes your priority is cheap/bulk.
I'm currently in the HPC space, and Lustre is a thing here, and it has tiered storage via policies: you can (e.g.) put your recent/hot data on NVMe, but older/colder bits on spinning rust on ZFS.
I doubt there'd be any real interest in a bastardized fork that only exists so the deep pocketed vendors can get away with code dump and run.
So that leaves btrfs which always seemed complex and brittle to me (compared to zfs at least)
I get that real hardware costs (author mentions EUR 70 a month for a suitable server), but without at least a baseline snapshot comparison run between real hardware, both SSD and HDD, and the sparse file-backed loop devices, it's hard to take much away from this.
Sadly the AI apocalypse isn't making stuff like this easy to do as a hobby.
Also hope Proxmox decides to incorporate it somewhat soon in PVE.
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.
I'm pretty sure Bcachefs is amazing and better than Btrfs. I also think Zfs is amazing and better than Btrfs. Even so, I still use Btrfs because I know it is guaranteed to always be present on any Linux without any effort on my part.
> That might be the best thing happened to the project since now development can happen at its own pace without the clicky bait influencers.
A better approach might have been to just paused mainline merging instead of forcing being kicked out?
Eg "Hey Linus, Bcachefs is still in early development and I need to merge changes in a pace that is not compatible with Linux development process. So I'm going to pause for a while now and once it reaches maintenance status I will focus on submitting patches in a healthy pace that you can digest".
I used to think that about ReiserFS, too. It was in the mainline kernel, development was snappy, and it solved some performance problems. I used it all over the place.
Things then subsequently... changed. :-/
100%. My system is rock solid and the last thing I need is rolling the dice after every update on whether my system will boot. https://www.reddit.com/r/archlinux/comments/eywcp7/linux_551...
I'm impressed with bcachefs's accomplishments though, and if they ever reconcile with the kernel I'll surely give it a fair shake.
Actual distro support, and doing it right with people actually communicating with each other, has always been a priority for the project.
How large is large? I've deleted files with sizes of tens to hundreds of GBs and not seen that, and can probably whip up a test with a single-digit TB file if motivated.
Do you perhaps have 'discard=sync' in your mount options, or are using a kernel earlier than 6.2, which is the version -according to the docs- where async discard became the default?
Except RHEL. They don’t include it in their kernels.
Alma Linux started including it again though.
It can never be easy.
As for BTRFS I think its also pretty good. Its just that I have the impression its development is guided by the needs of its sponsors and sadly for us META doesn't need RAID5.
A lot of things were tried, people did try to mediate.
The particularly galling thing though was when I finally started looking - post split - comparing bcachefs PRs to other subsystems and especially XFS - I was being more conservative with what I considered a critical bugfix.
There was never a clear statement on what the issue was. What you guys got in public was about as much as I got.
All I can say is - going fast when you're stabilizing and getting bugfixes out the door is what you can and should be doing when you've invested in test coverage, test automation, keeping the codebase clean and asserted, and building up a community that works well together on testing and shaking things out.
I genuinely do not know what they were thinking.
If you are referring to why bcachefs was removed from the Linux kernel, here's a discussion on bcachefs being removed from the Linux kernel.
https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=44868868
They already know what was discussed.
(Good? Bad? Indifferent? I don't know and I don't have a dog in this race. I'm just here connecting the dots.)
Instead it got kicked out because Kent constantly ignored the kernel's contribution rules and is unlikely it will ever be accepted back into the kernel.
And it went in when it did because Redhat was pushing for it and claiming to be supportive - but that never materialized. They wanted to get something for free without investing, or putting in the absolute bare minimum.
A _lot_ of people were saying publicly and privately "dear god yes we need something better than btrfs" - but no one from the existing kernel community was interested in stepping up.
Community's still growing, though. A lot of people have gotten active in making sure bcachefs actually works well for people end to end, and there's a hell of a lot more to shipping a filesystem than just writing kernel code.
The FS was marked experimental, so there is no urgency in fixing bugs or providing features in a certain cycle. Everyone using it knows what they got themselves into. You can still provide the DKMS module for faster fixes and features for anyone who wants to use BCacheFS more seriously for the time that the upstreaming process takes, but eventually it would have all been on mainline.
Asahi is taking a similar approach where they have their downstream kernel and push things upstream once they are mature.
That means the upstream kernel is not useful for running on that hardware now, but things are moving there eventually.
All this has been discussed to death, we don't need people armchair quarterbacking a year later. It's over, it's time to move on.
also tricks to make it easy to convert a root FS to ZFS now that Ubuntu Server 24.04 added native root-on-zfs support: https://github.com/pirate/zfsify
I do have a lot more pull requests to merge than I did before. I don't know if you want to count "Kent isn't reviewing PRs fast enough" as drama :)
Thanks for pointing it.
I say max, as ZFS stores multiples of the physical block size up to the record size. So even with 128k record size, if your file fits in two physical blocks, it will write two physical blocks of data.
The `ashift` parameter[2] controls the physical block size, typically 512 bytes or 4k for HDDs. Though higher can be useful on SSDs (but less tested, have seen some bug reports with >4k block sizes).
Typically you'd only want to use such small records if you are tuning it for a specific workload, like if you have a database that writes 8k pages.
Compression acts on records, so by limiting the record size, you limit the effectiveness of the compression: 1.2 and 1.8 blocks worth of data both gets written as 2 physical blocks.
On the upside, record size is a dataset property, so you can have many different datasets with different record sizes on the same pool.
[1]: https://github.com/fenio/modern-fs-benchmark/blob/599ec72fe3...
[2]: https://openzfs.github.io/openzfs-docs/Performance%20and%20T...
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?
ZFS and btrfs were designed from the start to handle this, by using checksums on every piece of (meta)data and redundancy to return the same data as was stored to the kernel, and rewrite the bad data.
I've tested my own machines running ZFS by random writes out of band from the filesystem/kernel and it has always found and fixed them.
Speaking about standard industry metrics.
fio is an established tool, and throughput, IOPS, fsync latency, and percentiles are standard concepts. However, the exact job recipes and the composite “Overall Core” score are project-specific.
The trivial-operation test is also custom: one 4 KiB write plus fsync every 200 ms. The idle window contains at most about 50 operations, so its p99 is effectively the slowest sample’s fio histogram bucket, not a statistically stable population percentile. It should be treated as a small-write durability-latency probe, not a universal application metric.
But after all all tests are in the repository. If they need tweaks, changes I'm open to do so... I started from scratch and did whatever came to my mind. Some tests are added after my initial link here which went mostly unnoticed several weeks ago but I got some requests for more tests which I implemented.
But to sum up. I want this test to be useful so feel free to open PRs with improvements. It's not like I've got some agenda. In fact I wrote here and there on the page that I'm counting on communities of various filesystems to provide improvements, changes etc to make their filesystem shining.
This is personal project made when I realized that multiple-devices benchmarks were almost completely absent. Since I had not access to real hardware I decided to make at least initially everything based on GH runner with all the limitations that came with this approach. I tried to limit these limitations as far as I could. But feel free to submit bugreports, PRs, propositions for improvements.
But if it helps, just some "initial gut feel observations" from me:
* It's definitely not possible to find issue with the the _sheer amount_ of results, but there's just far too much for a human to absorb, all presented at once
* Overall text size is quite small, and difficult to read
* The page doesn't make a strong statement of _what_ is under test: the first words are: "modern-fs-benchmark Multi-device CoW filesystems under workloads classic benchmarks skip" -- which defines the webpage in terms of what it is _not_, without stating what benchmarks are actually present.
* The first line of teh page contains run statistics that probably eithre want to b at the bottom, or just don't need to be in the webpage at all: "latest run 2026-09-18 18:50:45 UTC, kernel 7.0.0-1012-azure, 593 runs recorded · 145 trend points shown"
* A significant proportion of the free text is caveats. There's nothing wrong with being transparent about limitations, but they may be a sign that there might be alternative ways to present the data, or that the data may be flawed (depending on the caveat)
* Theres several categories that I think have been invented for the purpose of collation, but I don't think are defined on the page. I think "Overall Core" and "Core I/O" aren't explained, which means by definition it's impossible for a reader to understand the score table.
* And as we're all aware right now, current Claude models are currently struggling to write coherent English. There's several incoherent sentences on the page. It's a Claude issue.
Sometimes there are ways to make things easier without dumbing them down, but way too many people conflate the two; I get nervous when non engineers say "I've studied this, it should be easy".
At some point I'd like to get our own automated pts runs going, since Michael is not consistent with what hardware he tests on and he hasn't been consistent with getting them out.