>he fell for the btrfs meme>but the performance loss is worth it for muh snapshotsuse lvm with a sensible file system or ZFSbtrfs destroys flash storage with horrible write amplification
>>108756035Cool, I'll keep that in mind if I ever want to make a number on some benchmark bigger instead of actually using my computer. Until then, I'll keep using btrfs as I have for years.
>>108756035>>but the performance loss is worth it for muh snapshotsIt's worth it for copy-on-write.Using a non-CoW FS in 2026 is retarded.Even iToddlers have one (AppFS) now.
>>108756232Basically >>108756035reads like some tard in 2000 complaining that journaling reduces performance and causes unnecessary HDD wear.
>>108756035Personally, I prefer XFS RAID0 for speed and performance. Hoarding data is ridiculous, to me, unless you're file sharing
>>108756232ewww...no way... You must like disk thrashing and shortening the life of your disks
>>108756035>buttfuckerfs
>number of clientsWhat is a client in this context? How many clients is a normal desktop computer likely to have?
Damn OP that's crazy. Why'd you not link the source though??
https://linuxcommunity.io/t/benchmarking-linux-filesystems-zfs-xfs-btrfs-vs-ext4/6405This guy is kind of a retard.
>>108756035>>108756358why aren't they linear? instead you got this curve that drops at 400, goes up again at ~700, then drops again. this looks so stupid
>>108756385He used an LLM to set up this whole test and he doesn't really understand what the tests or the results mean.
