Looks like for speed EXT4 still reigns, but that misses the point of ZFS, Btrfs, Bcachefs AND F2FS, which are all COW filesystems and not intended to outperform journaling filesystems in speed.
Speak English 😁
This is a Linux community and most of these terms are common to even people new to Linux. I guess your joke isn’t really that funny. I hope you enjoy learning some new technology today!
A speed comparison between https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bcachefs, https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Btrfs, https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ext4, https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/F2FS, and https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/XFS on Linux. These are all file systems, like windows ntfs https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/NTFS or the apple journalling file system https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Apple_File_System.
While usually unimportant for most use-cases, and with each offering differing features and capabilities, in data-heavy systems speed can be an important factor in determining whether to use one file system over another.
It’s also ‘my car can beat your car in a drag race’ for geeks, because again it usually doesn’t matter and features are far more important than speed for the typical user.
Btrfs may have compression on by default so take it with a grain of salt
Neither do according to their respective docs.
Personally though I would’ve preferred an updated* test with more realistic hardware and zstd compression enabled cause this tested configuration is pretty rare in the real world.
* Their last btrfs compression benchmark was on Linux 4.11 in 2017 it seems, on a 120 GB Sata SSD.
