#34 Publicize btrfs performance data
Opened 2 years ago by catanzaro. Modified 2 years ago

Because pagure does not support moving issues between repositories, this issue is a continuation of https://pagure.io/fedora-workstation/issue/159. Please refer to that issue for topic and original conversation.


Users complain (not only in this RHBZ ticket) about very slow performance and this issue: btrfs should use crc32c-intel instead of crc32c-generic on a SSE4.2 processor.

@atim, as mentioned in the BZ this is likely a red herring. Can you link to the other places where this is being discussed / complained about so we can weigh in? Thanks!

@dcavalca here and here. It is non-EN Fedora user group in telegram messenger. User said that UX like on 5400rpm HDD on his Intel(R) Core(TM) i7-1065G7 and Intel Corporation SSD 660P Series (rev 03), all defaults, Fedora 33 Workstation. I'll ask both of them provide more details and file a bug properly, but no luck, sorry. I cannot do much there. I've triggered personally only because i found that on my system i have crc32c-generic as well but Josef already explained that this is not a problem.

There many talks and people keep talking that btrfs is terribly slow and such, but since i've asked many times provide details and numbers, so i consider this false alert and useless noise.

👀 Some users complain and saying they noticed huge regression in new 5.10 kernel https://www.reddit.com/r/linux/comments/kieqyu/warning_linux_510_has_a_500_to_2000_btrfs/

This appears to have been reported to the Btrfs mailing list: https://lore.kernel.org/linux-btrfs/cc99c0a9-6b2f-559f-c867-d2064ab46e09@exactcode.com/T/

@josef Have you seen this yet?

My kingdom for a standardized performance suite. Everything we'd been running was showing massive performance gains, and then something simple like this slips through. I'll dig in tomorrow morning.

Login to comment on this ticket.

Metadata