ZH version is available. Content is displayed in original English for accuracy.
Advertisement
Advertisement
⚡ Community Insights
Discussion Sentiment
61% Positive
Analyzed from 2250 words in the discussion.
Trending Topics
#filesystem#benchmark#bcachefs#kernel#data#zfs#got#modern#might#should
Discussion (69 Comments)Read Original on HackerNews
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
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!
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.
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 :)
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.
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.
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.
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".
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.
I'm saying ZFS on another OS.
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.
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.
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.
So that leaves btrfs which always seemed complex and brittle to me (compared to zfs at least)
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.
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".